Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Aid Programme (Effect of Devaluation)

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what effect devaluation has had on aid projects.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what review he has undertaken of the cost of overseas aid since devaluation; what decision he has reached as to economics; and what action he is taking where the aided territory has not devalued its currency, following the devaluation of the £ sterling.

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will make a statement on the effect of devaluation on overseas aid programmes.

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what estimate he has made of the effect of devaluation on the Government's overseas aid and development programme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what effect devaluation has had on the value of aid given to overseas countries; and whether he proposes to make up the shortfall.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether British contributions paid in sterling to United Nations aid and development projects will be increased to offset the effect of devaluation.

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mr. Reg Prentice): The effects of devaluation on our overseas aid are complex

and vary from one country to another. The matter is under close study but I am not yet able to make a statement.

Mr. Marten: But did not the right hon. Gentleman go to see the Prime Minister yesterday on this very subject? Therefore, can he not tell us in principle whether aid is an area which is sacrosanct or an area which is not sacrosanct?

Mr. Prentice: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear to the House a few days ago that all aspects of public expenditure, at home and abroad, are under study.

Mr. Digby: Where countries have not followed through into devaluation, will there be no question of making up the amount?

Mr. Prentice: I said that the whole matter was under study and, of course, that aspect among others is being considered.

Mr. Wall: Surely the value of the aid will have to be increased or the programmes cut. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the purchasing power of Britons working in overseas territories under aid schemes will be cut?

Mr. Prentice: There is a Question on the Order Paper later on the latter point. On the broader question, there is clearly some reduction in the value of the aid in certain countries. It depends on whether the country devalues. It depends on the way in which the aid is given. There is an effect, but it is very difficult to measure. We are studying what the effect is and what policy decisions need to be made arising from it.

Mr. Judd: Can my right hon. Friend say what the effect will be on multilateral agencies to which we have obligations such as the I.D.A. and the specialised agencies of the United Nations?

Mr. Prentice: That is an important aspect. A lot of our obligations to multilateral agencies are expressed in dollars. They will require adjustment in the amount of sterling paid in order to maintain the dollar value of the contribution.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government statement that there will be an increased amount of aid for the forthcoming year still stands?

Mr. Prentice: I do not think that I can answer that precisely because all expenditure is under review at present. I hope that I will carry the whole House with me in saying that a significant aid programme from this country and every other developed country to developing countries is an important and permanent part of our policy and something to which we would all pay particular attention.

Mr. Pavitt: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, while we are making a close scrutiny of our economic affairs, large sections of humanity are living in much worse economic circumstances than we are? In spite of our present difficulties, we shall inevitably increase our trade with the developing countries as they advance in the decades ahead.

Mr. Prentice: I agree. I repeat that a substantial aid programme is an important and permanent part of our policy, both on humanitarian grounds and in our own long-term interests.

Mr. Dalyell: Is not this the moment to reconsider schemes for tying aid from under-utilised capacity in this country to developing countries? Have the pilot scheme of the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and plans thought about by this Government been reconsidered?

Mr. Prentice: A good deal of our aid is at present tied to goods and services in this country. Clearly, this is something which we should always keep under review. As I said earlier, the whole question of policy and the size of our programme is being studied, just as every other aspect of Government expenditure is being studied.

Mr. Henry Clark: Would the Minister assure the House that the overseas purchasing value of salaries paid to British officers serving under aid schemes abroad will not be reduced as a result of devaluation?

Mr. Prentice: There is a later Question on that subject.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: If no decision has been made concerning cuts in the amount of aid received by overseas countries, would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is better to give aid to those countries which subsequently ex-

press some gratitude for it and to eliminate aid to those countries which in certain respects merely hurl abuse at us?

Mr. Prentice: A number of considerations are taken into account when deciding the priorities for aid, but it would be wrong to become too obsessed with the consideration which the hon. Member mentioned. If a political figure or diplomat makes a silly remark, it is not a particularly good reason for cutting off aid to his country.

Mr. Tilney: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that British commodity markets and our invisible exports have suffered major losses amounting to millions of £s owing to non-devaluation in various aided countries in the Commonwealth?

Mr. Prentice: That may be true. The Questions were directed to the effect of devaluation on the aid programme. The effect of devaluation on the economies of developing countries or the effect of their decisions on ours is a rather wider matter.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what steps he is taking in his plans for future aid to restore the financial position of countries such as Malawi which had suffered a reduction of 14·3 per cent, in the value of their reserves by reason of the devaluation of the £ sterling.

Mr. Prentice: Although all the resources of recipient countries are considered when aid allocations are made, aid is not provided to increase reserves. Since Malawi has devalued to the same extent as the United Kingdom, the value of her sterling reserves has, in fact, remained constant in relation to her own currency as well as in terms of her sterling purchasing power.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: But the value of those reserves externally has been diminished by 14·3 per cent. In those circumstances, does not the Minister accept that those countries that have suffered that kind of loss simply because they trusted us and kept their reserves here are morally entitled to a redeployment of aid in their favour?

Mr. Prentice: The effect of devaluation on developing countries is very varied. In some aspects, their economies may


suffer, whilst in others they may benefit from the effects of devaluation. It is very complex. Malawi is the fourth largest recipient of British aid in the world. About £40 million has gone to Malawi since its independence, so we cannot be accused of treating her ungenerously.

Overseas Aid

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Overseas Development how much has been paid out by Her Majesty's Government in the last three years in overseas aid to Governments which were not in diplomatic relations with us.

Mr. Prentice: The amount was £8·2 million in the period October, 1964-September, 1967.

Mr. Digby: Will the right hon. Gentleman adopt a more robust attitude in cases where rudeness is brought to the point of breaking off diplomatic relations? What are these countries to do, short of war, to forfeit their aid? Will the Minister favour, rather, those countries which remain loyal to us, whatever reservations they may have about some parts of our policy?

Mr. Prentice: In fact, the breaking off of diplomatic relations does have an effect on aid. It almost inevitably means a tapering off of aid. It does not necessarily mean that at that moment one ceases to disburse money under loan agreements already made. Of the figure I have indicated, the major part, £7·7 million, went to Tanzania and Sudan and most of it was released under agreements to which we were already committed before the breaking off of diplomatic relations. If there had been a sudden stoppage of that flow of money, it would have damaged trade in this country as well as in the two countries concerned.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether it is the policy of his Department to provide further aid to countries which have broken off diplomatic relations with, or defaulted in their financial obligations to, the British Government or to individual citizens; and which countries in either of these positions are at present in receipt of aid.

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Overseas Development to what extent when granting aid to developing countries he now takes into account the action of those countries or their subdivisions in taking over the assets of United Kingdom-registered companies without compensation.

Mr. Prentice: As my hon. Friend told the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) on 24th November, 1966, we take into account all relevant factors, including those mentioned in the Questions, when considering new aid commitments. On aid to countries which have broken off diplomatic relations, I have nothing to add to my reply on 9th November to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). Those countries in default on financial obligations currently receiving aid in the form of technical assistance are Argentina, Brazil, Burma, Mexico, El Salvador, Syria, Tunisia, and the U.A.R.—[Vol. 736, c. 1561–62. Vol. 753, c. 177–8.]

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of that Answer and the one to Question No. 4, does not the Minister think it better to help those countries to whom we have repudiated obligations by devaluation rather than those which have repudiated their obligations to us? How does the right hon. Gentleman supervise the administration of aid in countries which have taken the step of rupturing relations with us?

Mr. Prentice: As I said in an earlier reply, it does not necessarily make sense automatically to sever all aid or trade links with countries if diplomatic relations are broken off. In the nature of things, trade and aid will taper off, and new aid commitments are unlikely to be made, but if there is a sudden severance it might be bad for interests in this country—to people concerned with the provision of goods, and so on—as well as in the countries concerned.

Mr. Tilney: In spite of the helpful attitude of the Government of India towards overseas investment, is the Minister aware that the Government of West Bengal have forced on the Calcutta Tramways Company loss finance as a first charge by that Government; and that this is the first case of virtual expropriation without compensation of a British company in India?

Mr. Prentice: I am aware of that situation, but I might be in trouble if I attempted to answer in detail. If the hon. Gentleman cares to write, I will give him a reply.

Mr. Mikardo: Can my right hon. Friend tell me what part of the aid which he mentioned in his Answer as going to the U.A.R. is designed to help that country to release British ships which are locked in the Canal?

Mr. Prentice: As I said originally, the aid is in the form of technical assistance to the U.A.R. I think that Questions about the future of the ships are better directed to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Kenya Resettlement Scheme

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will make a statement on the effect of devaluation of the £ sterling on the 400,000 acre re settlement scheme in Kenya.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Albert E. Oram): It is too early to say what effect, if any, devaluation will have on this scheme, but I have no reason to suppose at this stage that the scheme will not be satisfactorily completed.

Mr. Wall: Will not the amount of land to be purchased have to be reduced or the grant increased? Can the right hon. Gentleman at least assure us that the valuation, which in some cases has been 15 per cent., will not be further reduced because of devaluation?

Mr. Oram: The British Government and the Kenya Government are both committed, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to compensation expressed in East African shillings. The more general question of whether the amount of the loan will be adequate or whether there should be an increase is one aspect of the general review about which my right hon. Friend has been answering Questions.

Former Overseas Civil Servants (Pensions)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will consider taking over the pensions of all ex-members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service so as to overcome the diffi

culties of some developing countries of the Commonwealth, the time lag over Income Tax reclaims, and the effect of devaluation.

Mr. Oram: No. These pensions are the responsibility of the overseas Governments concerned.

Mr. Tilney: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that many members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service are suffering greatly through delays in the repayment of Income Tax wrongly deducted by countries like Ceylon; and that they are also suffering from devaluation if they are living in countries outside England, in territories of the Commonwealth which have not devalued and where Income Tax has been increased? Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are giving any consideration to the request made by the Government of Tanzania that the British Government should take over these pensions?

Mr. Oram: On the first point, it is true, particularly in relation to Ceylon, that there have been delays, which I recognise cause difficulties for pensioners, but we do take all action that is open to us to take to put forward the representations of these pensioners to the Ceylon Government. The effect of devaluation is a complex issue, according to whether or not the countries concerned have devalued. It is really too early to give a general statement about the position, but if the hon. Gentleman has any particular problems in mind, perhaps he will write, or put down a further Question. As I stated in my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 9th November, the position in Tanzania is still being considered.

Mr. Rankin: I gather from what the hon. Gentleman has said that this disability falls on people who live outside England. Does it also fall on those who live outside Scotland?

Mr. Braine: The Minister has just said that it is too early to make a statement about the position. We fully understand that. But is he aware that what we on this side want to know is whether the Government are considering the point?

Mr. Oram: Indeed, yes. We are fully apprised of the problem.

Mr. Tilney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that owing


to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I wish to raise the matter on the
Adjournment.

United Nations Specialised Agencies

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will make a statement on the work of the United Kingdom delegations to the specialised agencies of the United Nations.

Mr. Oram: My right hon. Friend is responsible for our relations with the Food aid Agriculture Organisation and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, and I can assure my hon. Friend that our delegations play an active and constructive part in furthering the work of these agencies. I know that the same is true of British delegations to other specialised agencies.

Mr. Judd: I do not dispute that the delegations do very valuable work, but would not my hon. Friend agree that there is an unfortunate lack of detailed information in the House about the proposals being put forward in the name of Britain? Would it not be sound, for this reason and other reasons, to see the early establishment of a Select Committee on overseas development?

Mr. Oram: The establishment of such a Committee is not for me. As to detailed information available for hon. Members, I am aware of this problem in connection, for instance, with the Report of the biennial conference of U.N.E.S.C.O. I would be prepared to give further thought to how further information could be given to hon. Members.

Mr. Costain: Will the Minister give the House examples of the work that they are doing—either in the OFFICIAL REPORT or in other ways?

Mr. Oram: We have played a leading part. My right hon. Friend and other members of the delegations have played an important part in the considerations of the F.A.O. Conference in Rome recently. It. is a vast field. I do not think that at a Question and Answer session like this one can pick on particular items.

International Investment Insurance Agency

Mr. Archer: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will take steps to secure international agreement on the establishment of an international investment insurance scheme applicable to under-developed countries.

Mr. Oram: We are already participating in discussions organised by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development on draft articles of agreement for an International Investment Insurance Agency.

Mr. Archer: While I welcome that Answer, may I ask whether my hon. Friend would agree that there is some urgency in this matter? It may be the most immediate problem which is preventing investment in the under-developed countries at the moment.

Mr. Oram: I agree about the importance of this question, and in that sense it is urgent, but I would not like to minimise the difficulties in reaching the necessary international agreement for the establishment of such a scheme.

Mr. Henry Clark: In view of the urgency of the need for such a scheme, would the Minister give consideration not to an international agreement, but to an international convention which could link a series of national insurance schemes together rather than waiting the very long time necessary to reach a world consensus?

Mr. Oram: That is an interesting suggestion. It might enable earlier progress to be made.

Singapore and Malaysia

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will make a statement about compensating aid to Singapore as a result of the projected military withdrawal.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will make a statement about compensatory aid to Malaysia as a result of the projected military withdrawal.

Mr. Prentice: We have offered grants of £1½ million to Singapore and £1 million to Malaysia in respect of the


year 1967–68. Pending approval of Supplementary Estimates advances are being sought from the Civil Contingencies Fund in order that these sums may be made available to them. Consideration is still being given to subsequent aid.

Mr. Braine: Would the Minister not agree that before considering what compensatory aid could be given, a proper estimate should have been made of the full economic effects of the defence rundown? Is he aware that there is very considerable feeling in business circles in Singapore that this was not done? Unlike the Robens mission to Malta, the Dudley mission did not contain a single businessman. Will the Minister explain why no business opinion was consulted about this?

Mr. Prentice: The mission led by Sir Alan Dudley is not the only mission which has gone. Economists went out from my Department earlier than that, so we have carried out the kind of study mentioned by the hon. Member. There have been a number of contacts with industrial representatives in Britain about the possibilities.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Will the Minister arrange for the aid to be sent to Singapore in such a way that British firms are certain of making a contribution to creating fresh jobs?

Mr. Prentice: It is likely that the aid will need to go in a number of different ways, including some projects that will be linked with the plans of British firms. This is an aspect which we are studying very closely.

Mr. Dalyell: When my right hon. Friend is considering the report of the Dudley mission, will he bear in mind that some hon. Members on this side of the House are very cynical indeed about the requests of Mr. Lee Kuan Yeu for aid to Singapore? We feel that this country has done a great deal for Singapore. We welcome what has been done for the teachers' training college, but we urge him to have a very hard look at the requests that are made, which some of us feel may not be justified.

Mr. Prentice: We are studying the whole problem very hard. To get it into perspective, it is important to realise that over 20 per cent, of the jobs in Singapore

are jobs which arise from the British base. This is a country which already has a high rate of unemployment.

Sir G. Nabarro: Earlier in his Answers the Minister used the term "a good deal of aid is tied aid". Will he now give an unequivocal assurance that the £1 million for Malaysia and the £1½ million for Singapore, a total of £2½ million, will be solely tied aid so that only British goods and services, to use spare capacity in this country, are given to these members of the Commonwealth?

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. I cannot give an assurance in relation to that, but when we—

Sir G. Nabarro: Then your words are worthless.

Mr. Prentice: No, they are not worthless. I wish that the hon. Member would pay proper attention to exactly what was said in reply to Questions instead of just shouting abuse across the Floor of the House. As to the larger sums we shall be considering for the future—if the hon. Member will listen— certainly a proportion is likely to be in the form of tied aid.

President of the World Bank (Speech)

Mr. James Davidson: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will give practical support to the proposals in the field of overseas development made by the President of the World Bank in a speech on 27th October, 1967, to the Swedish Bankers Association, a copy of which has been sent to him.

Mr. Prentice: Consultations with other donors continue. If they are favourable to this proposal, Her Majesty's Government would give it any practical support they could.

Mr. Davidson: While I thank the Minister for that Answer, but in view of the continued need for overseas aid as a long-term investment and this country's reduced resources, will the Ministry have a close look at some of Dr. Schumacher's plans for intermediate technology.

Mr. Prentice: Yes. We are closely in touch with that group and we are


studying its work. We have a number of contacts with it.

Mr. Judd: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the advantage of schemes such as the World Bank and I.D.A. is that we do very well in terms of our exports out of multilateral programmes of this kind?

Mr. Prentice: Yes. Of the total operations of I.D.A., it is true to say that we get approximately 30s. worth of orders for every £ we put into it. This is an example of the fact that the aid programme is generally a good investment for Britain in the long term as well as being right on moral grounds.

Mr. Braine: Is the Minister aware that the impression gained at the recent Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference at Kampala was that recipient countries would welcome a grand assize of this kind? Can we take it that the Government are very much in favour of this kind of approach to a major world problem?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, we are in favour of it. We are discussing the matter at the moment with other countries. Clearly it will depend on some wide international agreement if it is to be set up in the way proposed by Mr. Woods.

Overseas Civil Servants (Salaries and Allowances)

Mr. Hunt: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what arrangements are being made to compensate officers serving overseas for the effect of devaluation on their salaries, all or part of which are paid by his department.

Mr. Prentice: Officers employed by my Ministry overseas, or seconded overseas at its request from other Government Departments, will receive the same adjustments of their overseas allowances as other British Civil Servants serving overseas. Supplementary payments made by the Ministry to officers employed by overseas authorities whose currencies have not been devalued will also be appropriately adjusted.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Confederation of British Industry (Consultations)

Mr. Bishop: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what consultations he has had with representatives

of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss ways in which its members may extract the maximum advantage from devaluation in the national interest; and if he will make a statement.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Edmund Dell):: My right hon. Friend has had consultations with the Confederation of British Industry about the action which industry needs to take in order to make full use of the opportunities created by devaluation. This has also been considered in the National Economic Development Council and with the British National Export Council and the Departments concerned are having discussions with representatives of individual industries.

Mr. Bishop: Would my hon. Friend agree that if the lowering of prices following devaluation is to continue for exports, this requires positive action on his part if the advantages of devaluation are not to be lost?

Mr. Dell: Of course, the opportunity to lower export prices is an important opportunity created by devaluation. But I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise that this must be a matter of commercial judgment in individual cases; and will depend in individual cases on different considerations, such as availability of capacity and price elasticity of the market. Whether it is better to spend more on after-sales service, and, indeed, a whole host of other considerations, must be a matter for commercial judgment.

Mr. Lane: Has the Minister yet been able to reassure representatives of industry that in the national interests the Industrial Expansion Bill will not now be proceeded with?

Mr. Dell: No, Sir.

Mr. Dickens: Is my hon. Friend aware that some hon. Members on this side of the House regard the response of the Confederation of British Industry to devaluation as being thoroughly unpatriotic, disheartening and defeatist? Will he now in his forthcoming consultations with the C.B.I, make it plain that unless a more positive response takes place from that sector of the economy we shall certainly take steps to ensure that those firms which lag behind are taken into public ownership to encourage the export drive?

Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend will be aware that many companies have made a most positive reaction to devaluation. Although I would not be in agreement with everything that the C.B.I, has recently said, I would refer my hon. Friend to what the C.B.I. Council said on 6th December about the way industrial management should react to the opportunities given by devaluation of increasing their export effort and so forth, with which I am largely in agreement.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the Under-Secretary of State at once deprecate his hon. Friend's stigmatising of the leaders of British industry as unpatriotic? Is it not a fact that only yesterday evening leaders of the C.B.I, stigmatised Her Majesty's Government as being utterly unrealistic for turning down £200 million of South African arms orders?

Mr. Dell: My hon. Friends have at least as much right to criticise the C.B.I. as the C.B.I, has to criticise the Government.

Goods and Services (Prices)

Mr. Bishop: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what action he is taking to ensure that increases in the price of goods and services are no greater than those arising from the effects of devaluation; and what action he proposes in the case of those increases which have already exceeded the justified amounts.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Frederick Lee): I would refer my hon. Friend to the Reply on 8th December to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) which summarised the advice being given to industry and trade by Government Departments and the ways in which supervision of prices is exercised.—[Vol. 755, c 412–3.]

Mr. Bishop: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of the next few days before Christmas to prowl around the market places in order to realise just how much prices have been rising, and will he assure us that he will take just as positive action on the prices front as he has on the wages front, to ensure that everyone has a happier new year?

Mr. Lee: I am sure that, in the light of my hon. Friend's question, he will be pleased to know that we have this morning made a reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes for quick examination of the question of distributors' margins in relation to manufacturers' recommended prices.

Mr. Biffen: But is it not clear that, to the extent to which manufacturers are not allowed to price their goods as they think the market will bear, the Government themselves will have to take their own deflationary measures?

Mr. Lee: In the reply to which I have already referred, we stated the criteria upon which we expect industry to function. If there are increases which go outside that, we shall probably take action to refer them to the Board.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend do everything in his power to stop excessive price increases in the public sector of industry and also in local government services?

Mr. Lee: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend will know that the Government have already stated that such references will be made to the Prices and Incomes Board where there are large changes in nationalised industry prices.

National Board for Prices and Incomes

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what recent consultations he has had with the chairman of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on the Government's economic policy; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Frederick Lee: My right hon. Friend meets the Chairman of the Board from time to time to discuss matters connected with the productivity, prices and incomes policy and has met him recently for this purpose. These discussions are confidential.

Mr. Morris: What consultations were there with Mr. Jones before his speech to the American Chamber of Commerce? Will my right hon. Friend try to persuade Mr. Jones to make less gloomy prognostications and to speak at least sometimes of the achievements of British industry, managers and workers alike?

Mr. Lee: We knew that Mr. Jones proposed to make a speech, but we did not ask him for the content of it. If people who take responsible jobs in public life were to have inhibitions of that sort put upon them, it would be highly improbable that they would take such jobs.

Mr. David Steel: Have either the Government or the Board sorted out what is their policy towards increases in council house rents?

Mr. Lee: There are problems here. As the hon. Gentleman knows, councils have responsibilities also towards their rate funds, and so on, but it is a point which is being looked at closely.

Mr. Higgins: As the Schedule which sets out the criteria which Mr. Jones has to take into account has been rendered completely obsolete by the Government's devaluation and the events leading up to it, has this question been discussed with Mr. Jones, and do the Government intend to amend the Schedule to the Act?

Mr. Lee: The Government have been discussing this vital question not only with Mr. Jones but with the C.B.I, and the T.U.C. Those discussions are by no means complete yet, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have the point in mind.

Prices and Incomes Policy

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the future application of prices and incomes policy following the discussions with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Discussions with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress have not been completed. My right hon. Friend will make a statement after the House resumes next month.

Mr. Barnes: If movements of prices and incomes are not very carefully controlled, is there not great danger that the benefits of devaluation will be frittered away? What strengthened vetting arrangements have so far been applied to the large number of increases in trade prices already announced?

Mr. Lee: I thoroughly agree with the point which my hon. Friend makes. As I said in answer to another question, we are discussing this vital matter with the C.B.I, and the T.U.C. We are well aware of the importance of keeping prices down wherever possible. In the reply to which I referred a short time ago, we pointed out that there must be a large number of prices which are not even affected by devaluation and that such increases as are forced by devaluation should not necessarily aim at retaining the same margin as before.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy discussing legislative proposals? Has he any proposals in this field for either new or amending legislation?

Mr. Lee: No, Sir. We have not discussed any change in legislative proposals. We have nothing of that sort in mind at the moment.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what additional staff are being recruited to strengthen the vetting procedures of the prices and incomes policy promised in the recent Letter of Intent to the International Monetary Fund.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The voluntary arrangements for notification and examination of proposed increases in prices and incomes are being reviewed: it is not possible to say at this stage whether any extra staff will be required.

Mr. Biffen: Is it not obviously intolerable to expect anyone to believe that the T.U.C. vetting procedure can have any real significance upon the control of incomes in view of the policies of unions such as the A.E.U., which are perfectly justifiable, in my view? If the Government want credibility to be attached to the Letter of Intent, ought not they to give a demonstration of taking action themselves instead of off-loading the dirty work to other people?

Mr. Lee: It is difficult to understand what the hon. Gentleman wants the Government to do.

Mr. Biffen: Nothing.

Mr. Lee: Good. The hon. Gentleman is frightfully concerned that we should


not take any more legislative powers. He is terribly pessimistic about the powers of the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. It all seems to boil down to his wanting a market economy to take charge.

General Planning Group

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will make a statement on the work of the general planning group of his Department; what industries have been selected for detailed study; and how this work is related to the work of the economic development comittees.

Mr. Dell: The group is primarily concerned with medium-term forecasting and planning, both macroeconomic and in relation to major industries. There is close co-ordination between the group's work and that of the economic development committees.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is it possible to use this study and research in order to draw up practical export promotion and import saving targets for industries? Second, could my hon. Friend help to bring trade unionists into discussions about such targets as a practical job which we need to do now?

Mr. Dell: The establishment of such targets might be useful, but if they were to be meaningful the industries concerned would have to be committed to them. This is one aspect of the problem which is being discussed in the economic development committees, where the trade unions are represented.

Mr. Marten: In order to help the country understand the Government's economic policy, will the Minister publish the assumptions on which these planners are working?

Mr. Dell: As the hon. Gentleman will know from a reply which the Prime Minister gave on 12th December, discussions are now going on with the N.E.D.C. about the prospect of a future plan. Although we cannot say when such a plan would be published, these discussions will include such assumptions as the hon. Gentleman mentions.

" Progress Report"

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what is the present circulation of his Department's

publication "Progress Report"; to whom it is sent and for what reasons; what is its current cost of publication and circulation; and whether he will change the title.

Mr. Dell: About 120,000; to people in industry, trade unions and the educational world on request only; to provide information on economic, industrial and regional topics; about £1,815 per issue; no, Sir.

Mr. Biffen: What is the progress to which the title refers? Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that this is at least one of the sacred cows which will come under scrutiny in the review of public expenditure, on the understanding that there would be widespread assent on both sides of the House if it were axed?

Mr. Dell: If he has not already done so, the hon. Gentleman should read the publication, when he will find a considerable record of progress. There is at any rate a very good indication of its value in the fact that its circulation is nearly six times higher than the equivalent publication of the previous Government and is rising steadily. Hon. Members, who, I would have thought, are very good judges of its value, seem to be very interested in it.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Television (Hours of Transmission)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Postmaster-General for what purpose he limits the hours at which television transmissions can be made.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): Under the agreed rules on hours of broadcasting I do not limit the hours at which television transmissions can be made; television programmes may be shown at any time provided that the rules on the number of hours of broadcasting are followed.
The reasons why successive Governments have thought it right to retain control of the number of hours of television broadcasting are set out in paragraphs 44 to 47 of the White Paper on Broadcasting (Cmnd. 3169).

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Should not the number of hours of broadcasting be limited by the judgment of the two


authorities as to what is the public demand and their ability to fulfil it, rather than by the right hon. Gentleman setting himself up as the judge?

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman has a very short memory. The powers of the Postmaster-General to control broadcasting were re-enacted in great detail by the party opposite when in office in the Television Act, 1963, and the B.B.C. Licence and Agreement of which the House approved in January, 1964.

Mr. Lipton: Is it not quite clear that we are already getting enough rubbish on television without extending the time during which this rubbish is unloaded on a long-suffering public?

Party Political Broadcasts

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will give a direction to the Independent Television Authority and the British Broadcasting Corporation that they should refrain from broadcasting party political broadcasts after 6 p.m.

Mr. Short: No, Sir.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are times in the peak viewing period when the great British public can hear nothing but the waffle of party political broadcasts with no alternative? Until such times as there are different times when these broadcasts go out, will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that they are not put over during the evening?

Mr. Short: This has always been a matter for agreement between the major political parties and the broadcasting authorities.

Mr. Mikardo: Will my right hon. Friend initiate discussions between the major political parties with the idea of ensuring that party political broadcasts are put out on different channels at different times, so that the listener or viewer has an alternative programme if he wants it?

Mr. Short: My right hon. Friend the Chief Whip is on the Front Bench at the moment and I have no doubt that he has taken the point. His opposite number is on the Front Bench opposite and no doubt he will take note or it, too.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Railway Stations (Telephones)

Mr. Costain: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that telephones have now been removed from a number of British Railways stations, causing considerable inconvenience to travellers who require to contact their homes or call taxis; and what proposals he has to provide better facilities to enable passengers to complete their journeys.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): Telephones inside stations are often freely available only to passengers. Where they are little used they are removed if there is a kiosk in the vicinity. It is open to British Railways to rent telephones for public use.
The loss on kiosks last year was £4½ million.

Mr. Costain: I appreciate that, but is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the genuine inconvenience to people who arrive at a wayside station where they cannot get a taxi and where there is no telephone? Would it not be possible for the Post Office to show some initiative and to help the railways in this matter by allowing them to put in telephones at special concessionary prices?

Mr. Slater: There is nothing to stop even British Railways from putting a telephone kiosk on a station platform if they so desire and think that it would be an advantage to passengers, but it cannot be always the responsibility of the Post Office to see about these things.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Special Stamps

Mr. Rankin: asked the Postmaster-General if he will issue a special stamp to mark the 800th century of the auld alliance between France and Scotland.

Mrs. Ewing: asked the Postmaster-General if he will issue a stamp to commemorate the 800th anniversary of the auld alliance.

Mr. Edward Short: No, Sir. I have already announced my special stamp programme for 1968. In any case, I am


advised that not all Scottish historians regard the alliance as dating from 1168.

Mr. Rankin: May I ask my right hon. Friend not to take his advice just from some historians? Is he not aware that, despite what he has said, that was a most disappointing answer to one who has always admired his approach to the issue of these special stamps? Will he not reconsider his answer as we are now in the season of giving, and could he not try to think of the Christmas spirit at this moment?

Mr. Short: I have looked at a lot of spirits since seeing this Question. Both Mackie and Hume-Brown date the alliance from 1295 when John Balliol signed a treaty with the King of France against Edward I of England. However, at this season of good will I should like to hold out a compromise to my hon. Friend. If his friends wish it, I am quite willing to arrange for a special franking on letters to celebrate this alliance, provided that somebody in Scotland will pay for it.

Mr. Brooks: On a point of order. Is there not a mistake in Question No. 38 as printed, or is my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) referring to some prehistoric alliance, some antediluvian alliance from 800 centuries ago?

Mr. Speaker: It is an obvious misprint.

Mrs. Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the two historians he has named are the only two to take that view and that other historians take the view that 1168 was indeed the year? In view of the Government's present difficulties with France, should not the right, hon. Gentleman be anxious to seek to emphasise one respect, albeit a historical one, in which the relationship is good? Would he not reconsider?

Mr. Short: It is not for me to arbitrate between Scottish historians. I have said that I have looked at the opinions of a number of them and that there is no agreement. However, I have tried to meet this point of view half way by saying that I am willing to arrange franking.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Obviously the word "century" is the

wrong word and ought not to be there. It is a misprint.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that the House was aware of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ECONOMY

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's action to forestall attempts to cause disruption to the economy in the coming months.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): I have been asked to reply.
I have nothing to add to the Answers given to earlier Questions on this subject by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Marten: May I express deep regret at the tragic reason which takes the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition away from the House today?
Does the Foreign Secretary recall that the Prime Minister said in the House that he had abundant evidence of a specific plot by the Communists to make this a winter of disruption? In view of the country's economic difficulties, would it not be sensible for the Government to tell the country quite frankly where this so-called plot is to strike next? Why are the Government so coy about this?

Mr. Brown: There is no coyness about this. In the statements to which I have referred and in the reports of Lord Devlin and Lord Cameron of specific instances, the case is well set out and the evidence is clearly available. What my right hon. Friends were hoping for and what I hope for is that industry, the trade unions and all the rest of us will take the appropriate action as a result of the position having been made clear.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Prime Minister what new initiative he proposes arising out of the consideration by the European Council of Ministers of the British application for membership of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of Great Britain's application to enter the European Economic Community.

Mr. Boston: asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a further statement about the steps to be taken by Her Majesty's Government on Great Britain's application to join the European Economic Community, following the meeting of the Council of Ministers of the Community this week.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement on Great Britain's application to join the European Economic Community.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
I would refer hon. Members to the statement: I made to the House yesterday. —[Vol. 756, c. 1267.]

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Instead of making vain attempts to organise the Five against France, would not the Foreign Office be better employed investigating what the French might have in mind when they talk about trading arrangements between this country and the Common Market? What would we have to lose? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: —what effect the events of Tuesday will have on our willingness to pay foreign exchange for the Rhine Army?

Mr. Brown: I do not think that that last question arises. No doubt the hon. Gentleman can put it to my right hon. Friend. I entirely refute his quite exaggerated assertion that we are, to use his words, trying to organise the Five against France. I made it perfectly plain yesterday that what we are anxious to achieve is an integrated Europe, which must include France as well as us, and that we have no ambitions to the contrary, either vain or otherwise.

Mr. Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what he said yesterday about contacts with the so-called friendly Five has aroused considerable interest? Can

he say anything more about the form which those contacts will have? Will he have similar contacts with countries with whom we could conclude general trading agreements?

Mr. Brown: As my hon. Friend knows, I hope not only to have contacts with the Five but to have contacts with other European countries—I think that was the phrase I used—and contacts with E.F.T A. and the Irish Republic. Therefore, I am covering what he is now asking me to do. I did that yesterday, and I can assure him that in the time since 3 o'clock yesterday and almost noon today I have not had any further thoughts on the subject.

Mr. Bessell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, during the period of probes prior to the application, the French made their attitude clear? If they did, why was the application made? If they did not, was he deceived by the French President?

Mr. Brown: One was at no time deceived. The questions that would be at issue if negotiations opened emerged during the talks, and emerged quite clearly. That is what enabled us to make our application in a different form from that in which our predecessors made it, and that is what enabled us to limit the issues we would want to deal with before entry. What was at no time discussed in those talks was what the attitude of anyone would be to negotiations starting.

Mr. Molloy: In the light of the events of the past few days, would my right hon. Friend consider acknowledging that as present economic arrangements within the British Commonwealth are not a real alternative, the time is now ripe for us to enter into serious consultations about an alternative to the E.E.C. within the British Commonwealth?

Mr. Brown: I said yesterday, and I repeat it again, that we will be discussing the situation in the light of this decision by one member of the Six not only with all the countries affected in Europe but of course with our Commonwealth partners too.

Mr. Maudling: In answer to a question yesterday from my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire


(Sir Alec Douglas-Home) the Foreign Secretary gave the impression that he was contemplating separate or special trading arrangements with the Five. Surely this is impossible in the light of the common commercial policy, which is the foundation of the Community? Could he clear this matter up?

Mr. Brown: There is nothing to clear up. What I said yesterday stands, and there will be talks between us as to what is practicable, possible, desirable and achievable in the period immediately ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIETNAM

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister what consultations he has had with the leaders of other countries about a New Year cease-fire in Vietnam.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.

Sir, we are in frequent contact with other Governments about the war in Vietnam, but the details of these exchanges must, of course, remain confidential.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that very great disappointment is felt because the Americans are to stop their bombing in Vietnam for only a very short period of time? Are the British Government urging the Americans to have an indefinite pause so that negotiations, genuine negotiations, can be started? We are really sick of this war in Vietnam.

Mr. Brown: I have told my hon. Friend many times that I am sick of the war in Vietnam, and I am as sick of the war from the one side as I am from the other. If my hon. Friend is really interested in stopping the war he would do better—I repeat this again—to distribute his condemnation a little more fairly— [Interruption.—and be a little nearer the mark.

Mr. Winnick: Come off it.

Mr. Brown: As to what consultations we are having with the Americans, or other Powers, about how to bring this to an end, this must remain confidential.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: In this context, will the Foreign Secretary reiter-

ate the fact that the Government realise and admit the moral right of what the Americans are trying to do in Vietnam, on behalf of the free world?

Mr. Brown: I do not think that I will help very much if I am drawn from that side, any more than if I am drawn from this side.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Would my right hon. Friend nevertheless understand the range and width of feeling that there is on this? Does he realise that there is this opportunity of securing a wider extension of the bombing pause?

Mr. Brown: I wonder why some of my hon. Friends assume that I do not share the width and range of feeling. I share it very deeply, but it is better that one addresses oneself to trying to bring the beastly thing to an end, rather than trying to moralise in empty gestures.

Mr. Goodhart: Have the Government any evidence at all that the Government of North Vietnam wish to enter peace negotiations or to de-escalate the war at present?

Mr. Brown: The House knows that this is the situation. The President of the United States made quite clear, in his San Antonio speech, how ready, willing and anxious the United States is to get to the negotiating table and what it is willing to do, including stopping the bombing, the moment Hanoi indicates that it is ready to go to the table. The trouble is that Hanoi is not ready to go to the table or even to indicate that it would. This is how it is we cannot make progress; this is why I ask those who share my deep feeling, instead of abusing those who want to negotiate, and instead of abusing the one co-Chairman of the Geneva Convention who wants to resume the negotiations, to address their reproaches to the other quarters.

Mr. Dalyell: In his talks with other Governments will my right hon. Friend raise once again the question of the violation of the Cambodia frontiers? This matter is urgent.

Mr. Brown: I would like to make progress there, and I would like to use the Geneva Convention arrangements for that too. These things tend to be interrelated. I do not want to exacerbate things by


referring to what goes on, from Cambodia into Vietnam. I do not think one can— one has to approach this in a constructive spirit—disregard the fact that all these areas are at the moment, alas, interconnected in this beastly war.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Until Hanoi is willing to come to the conference table, will the right hon. Gentleman not urge on our allies any courses which would expose their troops, including the gallant Australian troops, to increased risks?

Mr. Brown: I repeat, what conversations I have, what advice we tender and what discussions we have with other countries must, and so long as I am here will, remain confidential.

Oral Answers to Questions — PIT CLOSURES

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister what steps he intends to take to improve the co-ordination between those Government Departments concerned with the social and economic consequences of accelerated pit closures.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
None, Sir. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that present arrangements are working well.

Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this machinery of co-ordination extends to the chairmen of the nationalised industries, and if it does, can he explain the difference of opinion between Lord Robens as Chairman of the Coal Board and the Minister of Power over the planned rundown of the coal mines up to 1980?

Mr. Brown: As I understand it, there is no different between the Minister and the Chairman of the Board, but in any case the constitutional position about the responsibility of the Minister, both within the Cabinet and in this House, is quite clear. The situation is that the Minister has set out what he regards as the likely demand for coal up to 1975. This was then extended, as I understand it, and turned into a totally different formulation, going up to 1980. We regard the situation going that far as too uncertain to be able to forecast.

Sir G. Nabarro: As the White Paper on Fuel Policy was withdrawn within a few hours of presentation, on the specious grounds that devaluation undermined its concepts, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when he proposes to represent this White Paper, with a revised rundown of the pits, in order to use more coal at an early date, and less at a later date?

Mr. Brown: I do not think that arises on this Question, but I would use it to say that no grounds ever put forward by this Government are ever specious.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Prime Minister when he intends to issue invitations for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in 1968; and in what period of the year it will take place.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
The time and place for Prime Ministers' meetings are for collective decision by all member countries of the Commonwealth. No decision has been taken.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Now that there is no possibility of us joining the Six, at least during the political life of the right hon. Gentleman, should we not consult with the Commonwealth as a matter of urgency? Where is the Commonwealth to go in future?

Mr. Brown: Decisions as to when the Commonwealth Prime Ministers meet are of course for the Prime Ministers to take. Our Prime Minister is of course one of those who would take part in such a decision. No decision has yet been taken, and this is not something that we can summon. As to the length of my political life, the hon. and learned Gentleman must not take the gloomy view that I am as near the end of it as he is.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WALES

Mr. Hooson: asked the Prime Minister what further executive responsibility it is proposed to give the Secretary of State for Wales in the near future over Welsh matters.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 11th December to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan).—[Vol. 756, c. 50.]

Mr. Hooson: Would the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Prime Minister the great disappointment felt in Wales that, although the Secretary of State for Scotland has a great deal of executive responsibility, his counterpart in Wales has very little executive responsibility?

Mr. Brown: I will certainly convey that view, but our own view is that the system is working very well.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): The business when the House reassembles after the Christmas Adjournment will be as follows:

WEDNESDAY, 17TH JANUARY—Supply [6th Allotted Day]: First of a two-day debate on Foreign Affairs, which will be continued on Thursday, 18th January.

It is suggested that the first day should be devoted to the Middle East, and the second day to the Far East.

FRIDAY, 19TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Consular Relations Bill [Lords].

Remaining stages of the Mauritius Independence Bill.

Second Reading of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Bill [Lords], and of the Capital Allowances Bill [Lords], which are consolidation Measures.

Motion on the House of Commons Disqualification Order.

Mr. Maudling: In view of the serious economic situation, would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the awaited statement on Government economies will be made during the week that we return?

Mr. Crossman: I think that I had better limit myself to the assurance that we shall make it to the House and not before we return. It will be made to the House whenever it is ready.

Mr. Neave: Would the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects the special Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner on Sachsenhausen concentration camp? Will he give time for a debate on the report after the Recess?

Mr. Crossman: I am glad to hear from the Parliamentary Commissioner that his Report will be published in the Vote Office at 2.30 or 3 o'clock this afternoon. I repeat my pledge that, whatever the findings of the Report—I have not read it myself; I gather that it is long and serious—we shall have to find time to debate it.

Mr. Lipton: Is it not the custom for the Leader of the House to announce the business for the Monday following the week in which we return? In other words, what is the business for Monday, 22nd January?

Mr. Crossman: It is sometimes for the convenience of the House to announce the business for the following Monday and sometimes it is not. This time it happens not to be.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In view of the very considerable number of firms whose future is gravely affected by the eventual decision, would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that very soon after we return we shall have a debate on the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, dealing with the nuclear reactor programme?

Mr. Crossman: I mentioned that in my speech during the Christmas Adjournment debate. It is for consideration whether that debate should take place before or after the Departmental reply has been published. I have now been into the matter. I have asked the Minister to accelerate his reply. It would be of value to have a written reply in a Command Paper so that the House can study both the Report and the Minister's reply. I hope that, with my assurance that the Minister will hurry the matter up, the hon. Gentleman will allow me to arrange the debate after we have had the reply.

Mr. Lubbock: If the Government decide to cancel the F111 aircraft, which I am pleased to learn from The Times this morning they are considering, will the House be recalled so that we can hear the good news?

Mr. Crossman: I think that I have made the situation perfectly clear. I repeat the Prime Minister's assurance that the House will receive the report and debate it. It will not be made while the House is in recess. Whether it will include any particular item is a matter for hypothetical speculation.

AGRICULTURE (FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on foot-and-mouth disease and on the basis on which the Government will approach the problem of the livestock sector of the industry at the forthcoming Price Review.
Since I last spoke to the House about the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in the agriculture debate on 4th December and in an Adjournment debate on 12th December, we have had both successes and setbacks. But the general trend has been towards improvement. Here are the average number of outbreaks a day in each of the last four weeks:

Week 1
70


Week 2
47


Week 3
31


Week 4 (the week ended Tuesday 19th December)
27

These figures give us some grounds for hoping that the worst may be over, though we still have a very long way to go.

I realise that the restrictions I have had to impose have caused difficulties for many sections of the community and, above all, for farmers. I shall consider how these can be eased just as soon as it is safe to do so. But it would be the height of folly to relax too soon. I hope that all members of the public will continue to observe the rules I have given. Farmers must continue the most stringent precautions. Above all, farmers everywhere must keep a constant watch for signs of the disease and report any suspicious symptoms at once. Any farmer who even delays a report will have it on his conscience that he may have spread disease to his neighbours.

If everyone continues to play his part, I am sure that we can win this battle.

I referred in the debate on 4th December to the large cost increases facing the agricultural industry, of which the greater part have fallen or will fall upon farmers in the livestock sector. It is not yet possible to be precise, but the figures will certainly be higher than any in recent years. At the same time, it is clear that meat will continue to have an important part to play in the selective expansion programme.

We shall be considering in the Review the progress of the selective expansion programme and whether the industry has the necessary physical and financial resources. This we shall now do against the background of the situation created by devaluation. I have already said, for example, that beef is a commodity on which the Government recognise that devaluation gives us a new opportunity for competitive production at home.

In considering this progress, we shall also have regard to the consequences of the foot-and-mouth epidemic, which are falling so heavily upon livestock farmers and which are causing such a tragic setback to our aims of expansion in that sector. It is, of course, too soon to make a full assessment of this new burden.

Only at the Annual Review itself can we finally bring together all the data we need for our determinations, and so I cannot say in advance what these determinations may be. But I know that farmers are worried whether they will be able to go ahead with their plans, and I want to reassure them now.

In approaching the problem of the livestock sector of the industry at the next Review, we intend, in the light of all the important factors I have mentioned, to ensure that adequate resources are made available to meet these needs.

Mr. Godber: The Minister has made a statement on two issues. On the first issue concerning foot-and-mouth, is he aware that we on this side of the House certainly support him when he says that it would be the height of folly to relax too soon? We endorse that view to the full. We recognise that the drop in the number of outbreaks has been encouraging, but even the present figure would have been looked on as alarming in any previous outbreak. Would the right hon. Gentleman take particular note of the dangers in infected areas of travel over


the Christmas period and give a warning to people who seek to travel in the infected areas that they should take particular care at this time, otherwise we might have a recrudescence of the serious number of outbreaks which have occurred in the last few weeks?
On the other part of the statement, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that what he has said today does not go far enough and that there is not nearly enough precision in his statement? He has not even indicated that the Annual Review will be brought forward. If farmers are to plan for the increased production which is so necessary, it is essential that we have something much firmer at a very early date. Would the right hon. Gentleman take note of that and give us some firm figures and give firm advice to the farmers at a very early date in January?

Mr. Peart: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the foot-and-mouth outbreaks. I am aware of the support of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, and, indeed, of the whole House, in believing that we should not relax too soon. This is the worst epidemic that we have ever had. I believe that the whole House, and certainly all those in the industry, and I as Minister realise that. I will be making a general statement to the public covering the points which have been made about travelling through infected areas. It is important to get that across. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have made two broadcasts.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I could be precise. I wish that I could be at this stage. I will advance the technical discussions, which guide us in the Price Review determinations and in our discussions, but I cannot make a more precise statement. I have said that we will see that this sector will have the resources. That is a very straightforward statement.

Mr. Godber: May I press the Minister a little further on that last point? All that he has told us so far is that encouragement will be given in regard to wheat and that he will give help in regard to resources. If farmers are to do anything for the 1968 harvest, they must have advice early. Will the right hon. Gentleman please do all that he can to

bring forward his statement to the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Peart: If I can, I will. The right hon. Gentleman, however, knows the Review procedure. We are having discussions now. We work together, in a sense, in collecting information on both sides. This is not something which emerges only in February or, indeed, in March. As I have said, I will advance the technical discussions.

Mr. Biffen: May I ask the Minister a specific question concerning the problem of foot-and-mouth disease, namely, the rising scale of valuations? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is sympathetic to the proposition that compensation should be related to replacement value? Can he confirm that he is currently discussing this with the National Farmers' Union, and will he indicate when he hopes to be able to make a statement?

Mr. Peart: Yes, I am sympathetic to that. The point is a real one. It was certainly put to me when I was in the areas concerned, and the local farmers presented their views to me strongly. We are having discussions on this.

Dr. John Dunwoody: May I assure my right hon. Friend that the more encouraging statement which he has been able to make to the House this morning reflects great credit on his officers and, in particular, on his Veterinary Service? Would he care to comment on the role played by the farming organisations in the handling of the epidemic?

Mr. Peart: The farming community generally has supported the Ministry and our staff. I was alarmed by an editorial about this in the Farmer and Stockbreeder, which said that there was no sign of authoritative central control being exercised and that the problems were referred to county N.F.U. chairmen. That editorial is really moonshine. I issue the directives and officials interpret them. Of course, we consult the National Farmers' Union, both at headquarters level and locally, about the content of the directives and their application. I have had fine support from the farming community.

Mr. Kitson: Can the Minister tell us whether he will have discussions with the National Hunt stewards in the next


few days so that they may possibly consider a resumption of racing, if the necessary precautions could be taken, at some of the urban courses?

Mr. Peart: I made a statement that I was not relaxing the ban on racing. I am glad to have the co-operation of the stewards in that decision. They came to see me and I informed them that it was too soon yet to relax but that I would meet them again, and I hope to do so on the 27th December. Then, we shall discuss possibilities. I cannot say what I shall do. One must look at the trends. We shall, however, have a discussion on this.

Mr. Temple: Recognising the unusually dangerous type of virus in the present foot-and-mouth disease, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware of the widespread concern of farmers at the visits of his veterinary staff from farm to farm? Will he consider equipping them with sterilised equipment, as used in operating theatres, to be quite certain that those veterinary staff do not transmit the disease in the course of their visits?

Mr. Peart: We have a strict system and routine. It is important that the veterinary staff should be, to use a medical term, medically sterile and disinfected, and this we do. Every care is taken.

Mr. Brooks: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the position in the areas of Eastern Europe where reports suggest that another dangerous form of virus is present? In particular, will he clarify what precautions are taken to ensure that visitors to this country from those areas do not bring the infection with them?

Mr. Peart: This is a matter which my scientific staff are considering, and the director of Pirbright has issued a statement about it. We should not be too alarmed about that at this stage. It is an entirely different virus which we are tackling, and I want to win this battle first.

Mr. James Davidson: May I say, first, that we welcome the Minister's statement and ask him to give serious consideration to the possibility of placing a permanent ban on the import of meat from any country where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic? Secondly, in consultation with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, will the right hon.

Gentleman seek to deal with a serious anomaly in the regulations relating to where floats, etc., may or may not go? At present, I understand, floats in Scotland, at least, cannot go from farm A to farm B without first delivering their load, being disinfected and then going back. There is, however, nothing to stop a grocer's van or a child's bicycle going direct from one farm to another. This seems to me to make nonsense of the regulations.

Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Member will appreciate that both I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland have advised people not to go into farms when their journey is not necessary except with the permission of the farmer. The Scottish counties, fortunately, are not near an infected area.
I dealt with the questiton of a permanent ban when I made my earlier statement concerning the temporary ban which I have imposed on meat coming from countries where we believe that there have been a series of outbreaks. That order was made. I cannot go beyond that at this stage.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the Minister reconsider the suggestion, which I made to him a few weeks ago, that he should seriously consider setting up a committee to deal with the wider aspects of these problems, including the restocking of herds? In my constituency, about which I have written to the right hon. Gentleman, there are cattle haulage contractors whose business has completely ceased and who have no living. It will be a disaster in the West Midlands and Cheshire unless the Minister considers the wider aspects of these problems at an early date.

Mr. Peart: As I have said, I have set up advisory panels in the areas concerned. I agree with the hon. Member, who has pressed me about this, that the question of restocking is a very important one. We are aware of this and we are in touch with the N.F.U. about it. On the wider issue of setting up a committee, as I announced to the House, we shall have an investigation rather like the Gowers inquiry. I am not yet in a position to give details.

Mr. Bishop: Will my right hon. Friend realise that hon. Members on this side also urge very early assurance to farmers


concerning financial compensation and the help that can be given? As to relaxation, is my right hon. Friend aware that even in the areas not affected by foot-and-mouth disease to date—I have in mind my own area of Nottinghamshire—farmers are very concerned about access of the public to farms and other places and that his assurance to me last week about Nottinghamshire not being an infected area has caused concern, because we feel that not enough is being done to prevent indiscriminate access to farms and other places?

Mr. Peart: I have made a statement about this and also a major broadcast. I will cover the point again, because it is important that the public should appreciate the difficulties that farmers are having. I note what my hon. Friend has said. The system of compensation is the one which has been pursued by my predecessors and recommended by the Gowers Committee. We shall look at this. I know that there are many problems of people who suffer consequential losses. This matter will have to be considered in a wider context later. I am, however, sympathetic.

Sir J. Foster: Concerning restocking, will the Minister consider whether he could not come to an immediate decision to give the early sufferers compensation equal to that which is at present being awarded? Many of the farmers in my constituency were early sufferers. It is obvious that when they restock they will need the extra money. Their anxieties would certainly be allayed if the Minister could decide on an average now.

Mr. Peart: We are doing that. If the hon. Member knows of any particular case in which there has been difficulty, perhaps he will let me know. We have tried to speed up valuations, which are important to determine the compensation. I thought that there was no delay, but I will certainly look at the point raised by the hon. and learned Member and make a check.

Sir 3. Foster: I think that the Minister
misunderstood me—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be fair to have only one question each when other hon. Members are waiting to ask questions.

Sir D. Ronton: What is likely to be the effect during the next few months on milk supplies, and to what extent is milk still being sent from infected areas to uninfected farming areas?

Mr. Peart: On the question of milk supplies, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have seen recently the statement by the Milk Marketing Board. There is no danger at present. Milk production went up; we had a very considerable increase, and for this reason there is no shortage. Milk coming from infected areas is checked; there is absolutely strict control. So far as I am informed by my veterinary staff, there has been no possibility of any outbreak having been caused by this.

Mr. Dalyell: Can my right hon. Friend say any more about discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland about the Scottish position?

Mr. Peart: In what way? Will my hon. Friend say?

Mr. Dalyell: In reply to the hon. Member for Abesrdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson), my right hon. Friend said there had been discussions about the Scottish position with the Secretary of State. I was wondering if he could add to that.

Mr. Peart: I always consult my right hon. Friend. [An HON. MEMBER: "The right hon. Gentleman has got to."] Yes. He is the Minister responsible for Scotland, but I am responsible for the general strategy for foot-and-mouth control.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a Parliamentary Question which I put to him yesterday, said that under present legislation he is not able to increase the compensation to replacement value. Can he assure the House that if he brings legislation forward it will go forward as immediate legislation and not merely take its place in the queue of Government legislation? The second point which he made was that he will discuss the matter with the National Farmers' Union. He is now saying that he is already in discussion with the National Farmers' Union. Can we be assured that this is under discussion now?

Mr. Peart: When I say I am in discussion I do not mean that I am always


personally in discussion. I really mean my officials are, particularly in the infected areas, but I am informed of the discussions on the question, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate. On the question of compensation, if we have to do something—and we are going to do something—and legislation is necessary, I know that the Leader of the House will be sympathetic to my point of view.

Mr. Hawkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he will receive enthusiastic support for bringing up valuations to replacement costs? Will he at the same time bear in mind that certain industrial and business concerns have been closed down by his own orders and that these people should also be borne in mind for compensation?

Mr. Peart: The question of consequential losses is a very difficult one, but on the first point I note what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the current review stresses the import saving rôle of agriculture? Will he also consider the need to strengthen the regulation of imports, since this country is now going to be greatly exposed to subsidised French surpluses?

Mr. Peart: The whole question of import substitution and import control is one which we will look at in relation to the selective expansion programme, and we shall also discuss it with the unions during the review period. I know the hon. Gentleman has pressed me previously on this, and I will bear it in mind.

Mr. Woodnutt: Will the right hon. Gentleman recollect that some four weeks ago I sent him a formula of a fertiliser used in certain parts of Brittany and; which appears to have immunisation qualities, because they have not had foot-and-mouth there during many decades? Would he reconsider his decision that this cannot be allowed here, "because I think that everything should be looked at and I think Pirbright might be well advised to look again at this fertiliser?

Mr. Peart: As the hon. Member knows, I receive a great many and various suggestions from hon. Members

and from people outside the House. We look at them. I must rely on my scientific and veterinary advisers. I am sorry that I did not give the hon. Member a forthright reply to his question, but his suggestion was looked at.

Mr. Garrett: Has my right hon. Friend noticed a lack of encouragement coming from the Opposition benches this morning—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—but he need not be dismayed because, not only in the farming industry but in the industrial areas, there is widespread appreciation of the tremendous efforts he and his Junior Ministers and officers are making to try to curtail this drastic disease?

Mr. Peart: May I say to my hon. Friend that I believe that all hon. Members of this House wish us well in this campaign. We do have to answer critics from time to time, for it is inevitable that when one is fighting a battle someone will criticise. We shall win this battle.

Mr. Hooson: Can the right hon. Gentleman give authoritative advice on the need for disinfectant baths or pads along public roads? Farmers are extremely concerned about cars passing from infected areas to non-infected areas without apparently having any kind of disinfectant.

Mr. Peart: I have given firm advice on this, and we have also publicised it.

Mr. Jopling: Will the Minister consider the position of those vets who are doing this terrible work, and the fact that they work long hours seven days a week and probably will not have much of a Christmas? Will he see they are properly recompensed, particularly his own Ministry vets where the job, by its very nature, means confinement to their offices for long hours?

Mr. Peart: I note what the hon. Member says It is important that we should see that these hard working men and women do have adequate rest and time off. We are very much aware of this question.

Mr. Costain: Has the Minister had his attention drawn to the concern of Kentish farmers to the possibility of motor racing over the Christmas holidays and the risk of the spread of the disease?

Mr. Peart: I must be careful about this. Some people would like us to ban all activities everywhere. I am not going to do this. After all, there is the whole problem of football matches. Where there is a danger, after specialist veterinary advice has been given, I take action.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the Minister aware how disappointed livestock farmers will be at the lack of an affirmative answer to their problems? Will he give an assurance that soon after the Recess he will give an answer and definite news about what he is going to do to help the expansion of the livestock sector? Technical arguments are not enough. What is he going to do to help them?

Mr. Peart: As the hon. Gentleman knows, as he was once a member of Government, the Review is the place for discussing this. I have said that I will advance the technical discussions, and they are taking place now informally.

AGRICULTURE (SELECT COMMITTEE)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the activities in England and Wales of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and to report thereon;

That the Committee do consist of twenty-five Members.

That Mr. William Baxter, Mr. Peter Bessell, Mr. Terence Boston, Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith, Dr. John Dunwoody, Mr. William Edwards, Mr. John Farr, Mr. Tony Gardner, Mr. Garrett, Dr. Hugh Gray, Mr. Paul Hawkins, Mr. Bert Hazell, Mr. J. E. B. Hill, Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine, Mr. Peter M. Jackson, Mr. James Johnson, Mr. Michael Jopling, Mr. Clifford Kenyon, Mr. John P. Mackintosh, Mr. Peter Mills, Mr. Elystan Morgan, Mr. Derek Page, Mr. Patrick Wall, Mr. Tudor Watkins, and Mr. John Wells be Members of the Committee.

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order; and to report Minutes of Evidence from time to time.

That six be the Quorum.—[Mr. Crossman.]

12.29 p.m

Mr. Michael Jopling: It is extremely important that the Select Committee on Agriculture should be re-

appointed. I have no wish to delay the House, particularly the debate which my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) is to raise in a few moments. I was a member of the last Select Committee and I think that those of us here who were on the Committee—and I see a number of them on both sides of the House here—feel that it was extremely important and novel experience for Members and that it was conducted very much on non-party lines. That Committee produced a Report during the Summer Recess on its work, which involved looking at the implications for British agriculture of joining the European Economic Community —

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot, on this Motion, discuss the work of the last Committee.

Mr. Jopling: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I will come to the point immediately I wanted to make. My difficulty is that the Leader of the House has not allowed a debate on that previous Report. Now we have today's Motion to set up the Committee again.
I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman is here, and I want to ask him, first, why it is that he has extended the number of members. It was extremely satisfactory before, as I am sure other members of it would agree. I have looked for some explanation, and I have not been able to discover it.
The principal reason why I am speaking today and asking for a little time is the item on the Order Paper which says that the Committee shall
 have power to send for persons, papers and records ".
That is all very well. I agree that the Committee should have power to send for them. But, as I understand, there is no onus on anyone to provide them. I want the Leader of the House to tell us what those words mean, because our experience on the previous Committee was that we had all these grandiose and sweeping powers, but, when we tried to use them, we were not given any satisfaction or help.
The last Report was marred because of the actions of the Foreign Office and the Government in not supplying us with some papers. During our proceedings, we had a clear conflict of evidence be-


tween the Permanent Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and our Ambassador in Brussels. On that occasion we asked to have some papers—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, this is the kind of matter which the hon. Gentleman can discuss in the Committee when it is set up. May I remind the House that we have business set down for today? I hope that we shall not spend too long on what is almost a procedural Motion.

Mr. Jopling: The difficulty is that the Committee discussed the matter at great length, and we did not have an opportunity to ask the Leader of the House what these powers meant and whether or not we had them.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): I can perhaps shorten this discussion a little. This is really a procedural Motion. The question of having a debate on either the Report of this Specialist Committee or the Science and Technology Committee is one which we have been discussing through the usual channels. I have given an assurance that a Report will come. Surely the time to discuss this point is when we debate the Report of the previous Committee and not on a procedural Motion setting up the Committee once again.

Mr. J. B. Godber: I think that there is a point in what my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) has said about the powers to send for persons and papers. May we have an assurance that such requests will be responded to adequately?

Mr. Crossman: This Committee is given the precise powers of any other Select Committee to call for persons and papers. How Committees use them varies enormously, and their success in using them depends largely on their skill and experience. I am sure that this Committee will be no less skilful than other Select Committees, such as the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee. I have never heard of any discourtesy, and there is always discussion as to how much of the information supplied is revealed.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Mr. J. E. B. Hill (Norfolk, South)rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) has the Floor, two right hon. Gentlemen having intervened. Mr. Jopling.

Mr. Jopling: I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) to ask me to give way, and I was giving way to him. If it is in order for me to give way to him—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If an hon. Member gives way in succession to a number of other hon. Members who wish to intervene all at the same time, it may be that I shall forget that he had any right to address the House at all. Mr. Jopling.

Mr. Jopling: I must press this matter, having sat as a member of the Committee for the earlier part of this year and knowing that we had nothing but trouble about it. We could get no sense out of the Government. A series of Ministers appeared before us, but they gave us no satisfaction. I must press the Leader of the House to tell us what these powers mean. Here is a Select Committee being set up. We are told that we have these powers, but our experience tells us that the powers mean very little. On the last occasion, we wanted to see a letter which would show us clearly who was right and who was wrong. It was a simple internal letter which passed between our Ambassador in Brussels and the Foreign Office. We were not allowed to have it. That is the sort of thing which makes a mockery of a Motion like this, and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make his point briefly. I remind the House again that we have allocated from 12 o'clock to 5 o'clock for hon. Members. This is largely a procedural Motion. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I hope that any hon. Member who wants to make other points will do so briefly.

Mr. Jopling: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter on which 25 hon. Members will spend many hours during the course of the next seven or eight months. I think that it is not unreasonable to ask for an explanation from the Leader of the


House. I think that I have made my point. We want to know what these words mean and whether we have the powers or not.

Mr. Crossman: It would not be in order for me to discuss the Report of the Select Committee in which it has made certain complaints. We shall debate its Report in due course.
I have been asked what powers the hon. Member has as a member of the Select Committee to call for papers. He has the powers of a member of the Select Committee to call for papers, and the Select Committee has powers which are neither more nor less than those of any other Select Committee which has been set up in the last 30 years.
What we are discussing is the appointment of a Select Committee, with the powers which go with the appointment. It would not be in order, surely, for me to argue whether they are good or bad powers. We are discussing whether a Committee should be appointed with such powers as a Select Committee has. Surely we should be content to appoint it. Having appointed it, if there is a wish to change its powers, a quite different Motion should be tabled.

Mr. David Steel: I wish to ask the Leader of the House one question which bears strictly on the procedural Motion. Last year, following representations from a number of hon. Members of all parties, the right hon. Gentleman added two Scottish hon. Members to the Select Committee after it was constituted. This does not meet the point which some of us are still making. By the terms of the Motion today, the activities of the Department of Agriculture in Scotland are not affected by the Select Committee's powers. This is a serious point, and it applies also to the Committee on Education. In setting up these Committees, the right hon. Gentleman must decide to include the equivalent Departments in Scotland or, alternatively, he must set up a separate Select Committee to investigate the activities of the Scottish Office.

Mr. Crossman: Mr. Crossmanrose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would help if any other contributor spoke first. Mr. Hill.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I want to associate myself with the criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). It is obvious that we need time on the Floor of the House to discuss this matter.
In respect of today's Motion, may I ask whether the Committee has power to set up and operate through sub-committees? This very large extension of membership will make it hard to work out a procedure of detailed examination on technical subjects.

Mr. Crossman: Speaking off the cuff, if the Committee wished to do so, we might have to pass a procedural Motion. We did so in the previous case. Certainly there would be no objection, and I hope that it would take a shorter time than this one is taking.

Mr. David Steel: May I have an answer to my question?

Mr. Crossman: I have a good deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). In the case of the Education Committee, I think that it will cover the activities of the Scottish Office. In the case of agriculture, we have repeated what we did last time and included Scottish hon. Members on the Committee. I know that it is not perfect, and I hope that we can do better.

Question put and agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE B

Standing Committee B, which stands adjourned till the first Tuesday or Thursday on which the House sits after the Christmas Adjournment, to be further adjourned till Tuesday 23rd January at half-past Ten o'clock.—[Sir B. Craddock.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

TOURIST INDUSTRY

Mr. Speaker: I allocated an hour and a half for the first debate in the not unreasonable expectation that it might be interrupted at the beginning. I did not know that the interruption would be quite as long as it has been, but, in the circumstances, I think that we shall stick to the timetable which I have announced to the House. The first debate will end at 1.30 p.m., and the other debates will end at the time that I have set down.

12.40 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I understood that, with the agreement of all parties, the Minister was to make his statement about the loans scheme for the hotel and catering industries at the beginning of this debate.

Mr. Speaker: I have given the hon. Member leave to raise the subject which he has chosen on the Adjournment. He must be very careful. He may lose the right to speak if he does not speak now. If the Minister wants to anticipate the debate for which the hon. Member has asked, and if it makes sense to him, I have no objection.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the House if I intervene during the hon. Gentleman's speech. I have only to announce that my right hon. Friend has decided to extend the experimental hotel loans scheme for a further three months, and that there will be a slight change in the scheme in that loans granted for new hotels can now be for 20 years instead of 15. The effect of this is that we shall continue to consider applications provided that they are received by the Board of Trade by 31st March of next year.

Mr. Rees-Davies: That was such a mini-mouse of a statement that it hardly surprises me that it was not made as a Ministerial statement from the Dispatch Box. Leaking it in during the course of an Adjournment debate is a good example of the Government's attitude to this industry. From Thailand and Tibet, across to the Ganges and Euphrates, across to Latin America, and up to Eire, in fact in almost every country in the world, there is a Minister in charge of tourism,

and there is an active policy for it. It is only in the United Kingdom that there is no policy for tourism. Indeed, as I listened to the statement on foot-and-mouth disease, earlier this morning, I felt that the Government were treating our tourist industry as though it were an infected area, because not only is there no policy for tourism, but the Government are actively hostile to this industry in a number of ways.
With the new year coming, I want to ask the Government for three specific clear undertakings. First, that they will work out a policy for tourism, that it will be a co-ordinated policy within the respective Government Departments, and that while the Departments are considering that policy they will take into account the need for a Select Committee to study the problems.
As I listened to my hon. Friends, a short while ago, I felt that the Leader of the House might wish to discharge the Select Committee on Agriculture and have a more worthwhile one, namely, one for tourism, for at least this must be said, that whether it be agriculture, or tourism, there is far more money to be made for the benefit of this country in an easy way in tourism than in any other industry. It is symptomatic that whereas the Board of Trade issues clever and careful export statistics month by month and figures for imports which are published regularly in its yellow book, it has no similar document for invisible exports, and there is no mention of the hotel or catering industries, and no mention of the revenues derivable from them. I have often felt that an invisible export, to the Board of Trade is merely something with a miniskirt to be found in Chelsea. This is really the attitude and there is no one of whom I am aware in this Ministry, or other Ministries, with a direct brief on this subject to promote tourism.
Not only should there be a policy coordinated within the Departments, but there should be a direct policy which regards tourism as a major industry; and, furthermore, a major export industry, and it is in this context that I propose to address the House.
The public have suffered through restrictions on currency, and the national rather than the international approach to the whole question of reciprocity,


which is required for the tourist industry. Secondly, the hotel industry has suffered not only because of an acute shortage of beds, but of amenities of all kinds and I shall refer to this in a moment or two. Thirdly, the country suffers because of the total absence of any liaison between the Ministries on the questions of immigration and customs control. When the new Boeing comes into commission it will take three and half hours to clear just one batch of arrivals in this country. If we imagine that they will then not switch their operations direct to Paris, the Board of Trade had better begin to understand the position of the Ministry of Aviation, and the Home Office had better begin to understand its responsibilities for expenditure control.
Unless, by next year, we have changed our system of Customs and abolished the old system of confrontation and switched to something analogous to the Swedish system and adopted a new method of Customs control, we shall lose many thousands of visitors.
The committee on invisible exports properly and rightly criticised the Government for giving no assistance to the tourist industry. The "Little Neddy", the catering industry committee, made a number of admirable recommendations and pointed out the vital need for new measures to inject investment into this industry. The British Hotels and Restaurant Association, the British Travel Association and other bodies have also made a number of good recommendations.
The matter of prime importance is the development of the hotel industry to enable it to cater for an increased number of overseas visitors, to ensure that we have more home holidaymakers, and to this extent the B.T.A., with Government assistance, is preparing an excellent home holidays campaign. This is at least a worthwhile feature. We must provide for businessmen. At present, throughout the country the needs of businessmen both in hotels and boarding houses are not met at all. It is no good trying to draw a distinction between overseas business visitors and home holiday makers. They are all part of one cognate whole and one proper policy is required for the industry. We must ensure that the requisite accommodation of the right quantity, quality and in the right location is built. We should

provide industrial building allowances for those who put up new buildings. They should be similar to those which apply in Eire, Italy and other countries.
Secondly, we must provide investment grants to enable the industry to provide the equipment and furnish its hotels to the required standard. It will be found in almost every country in Europe that measures of this kind operate. Next, we should extend the development area legislation to hotels and in this way give them the priority which will enable them to obtain the earnings required.
The statement made just now by the Minister in his apologetic manner was too preposterous for words. Twelve months ago the industry objected to the terms and conditions of this scheme. The Government offered a total loan of £5 million. Only £1¾ million has been taken up, because the terms and conditions are so stringent and preposterous that it has not been worth anybody's while to take up a loan. In the outcome, only 11 persons have obtained a grant. The amounts are quite substantial ones, totalling, as I have said, £1¾ million.

Sir John Eden: Perhaps I may help my hon. Friend. Yesterday, I received an answer from the Minister on this very point. The position is worse than my hon. Friend has indicated. Twelve loans have been offered, and only six have been accepted by the applicants, because the terms were so stringent. Two have been completely rejected, and we have not heard anything about the others.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for that information. I knew that there had been 11 or 12 and that was all. We now hear that only six have been taken up.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Seven.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I want to tell the Minister the reason for this. Twelve months ago the advisers to Her Majesty's Government virtually withdrew from the scheme, because, in their view, its operation would be to no purpose.
The first thing that is necessary is to have a scheme of investment grants not exceeding, say, £50,000 to any one person or group, to enable improvements to be made by way of lifts, bathrooms and similar small modernisation improve-


ments, not only inland but in the seaside resorts, so as to provide up-to-date accommodation. The Government must introduce some scheme to assist in this way if we are to secure the modern amenities which are required and which are signally absent throughout he country.
Secondly, the Government must extend their scheme of loans to larger sums of money, at fixed interest rates. This has been very effectively carried out in countries such as Eire, Italy and Switzerland. Whether the loan is made by a financial institution, and guaranteed by the Government—and it is best if it is made by a financial institution with a credit guarantee from the Government—there should be a capital payment and a moratorium on the repayment of capital for three years, with a fixed interest loan at 4 per cent, or 4½ per cent., repayable in 20 to 25 years. This is nowadays the only way to secure adequate hotel development.
The other day, in reply to Questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) and myself, the Minister stated that, whereas the Board of Trade controlled hotels, it did not control catering, and that this was dealt with by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. I hope that the Minister will make the strongest representations to the Select Committee on Agriculture and will tell it in no uncertain terms that catering should be dealt with by the Board of Trade. A more stupid situation than one in which catering questions are controlled by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I find it difficult to imagine.
We want to see, for the first time, a proper tourist policy. A neat opportunity has been provided by devaluation and the immense increase in overseas visitors to our shores—now nearly 3½ million and with a target of 5 million in 1970. There is no reason why this country should not succeed in obtaining a great deal of invisible exports if it pursues the right policy now.
In my view, and that of many of my hon. Friends, we require a Minister of Tourism who will direct his attention to this matter and this matter alone—a Minister who will secure the co-ordination of Departments and persuade the Government—I agree that it is a very

difficult thing to achieve—that hoteliers and caterers are carrying on an industry and that the buildings concerned with tourism should be treated as industrial hereditaments. The Government must sweep away the iniquitous Selective Employment Tax and ensure that if there are to be no investment allowances there will be direct investment grants and loans.
The Government must see that we treat this industry as other countries do, so that Britain can emerge successfully in the future and will not be regarded as an "infected area", or Britain appear like a bulldog growling over the gate and saying, "Please keep away. We do not want you to come to our shores."

Mr. Speaker: It may help the House if I say that the Front Bench will intervene at ten minutes past one. Speeches must be brief.

12.55 p.m.

Mr. Mark Woodnutt: I join with my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) in expressing extreme disappointment at the Minister's most inadequate statement. What most disappointed me about the £5 million scheme which I welcomed when it was introduced is that it appears to have been restricted to London and the main provincial towns of Scotland and Wales, and that when good schemes are put up by coastal towns they are more or less turned down out of hand. Coastal towns have just as much to offer visitors, if not more, than the places to which the Minister seems to have restricted the application of his scheme.
In view of the shortness of time I shall not go into details of certain cases, but I want to refer to a hotel in my constituency which is setting out to achieve top London standards and has put forward a scheme and had it rejected just because it is not adding bedrooms. I hope that the Minister will instruct his Committee which is to consider these matters that it is more important in the first instance to concentrate on improving amenities rather than adding to bedroom space. We must raise standards. We must have a higher proportion of bathrooms to bedrooms, and provide all the other amenities which are necessary to attract American tourists.
The tourist industry is our biggest dollar earner and fourth biggest foreign


currency earner, and its biggest problem arises from the multiplicity of control at the top. It is ridiculous that in respect of catering matters we must work through the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whereas if we are dealing with a question of development loans we have to go to the Board of Trade, and, if questions of camping and caravans arise, we must go through the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

Mr. A. P. Costain: And for building licences we have to go through the Ministry of Public Building and Works.

Mr. Woodnutt: Yes. It is quite ridiculous, and it means that effective decisions cannot be made quickly—if they can be made at all.
I sympathise with the Minister of State, because he has an appalling job. He is one of the few Ministers whom I consider to be a good Minister. He could do a very good job, given the opportunity. I remind him that in the opinion of the all-party Tourists and Resorts Committee it would be in the best interests of the tourist industry if we were to appoint a Select Committee to deal with tourism so as to service both the Ministries and the trade. This suggestion should be welcomed by the Minister, and I hope that he can assure us that he will press for such a Select Committee to be set up.

1.0 p.m.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I, too, will not make a long speech in view of the shortness of time. I wish to refer to the announcement made this morning as it compares with the practice of our two nearest international opponents. France gives 60 per cent loans for 20 years at 3 per cent., and Eire gives a 20 per cent, grant and a 10 per cent, tax allowance for depreciation. These are the kind of figures which we must consider to make our hotel industry pay. I will not go into the economics, but the Minister knows that new hotel building in London is only marginally profitable and in the country generally hardly profitable at all.
I emphasise that we must treat this industry as an industry and not just as a service industry. Unless we do, we will not make the necessary progress. One of two things must happen—either we

must take all our facilities as a whole or we must look not just at the hotels but at the theatres, particularly the National Theatre. Now that the Government are to provide money for the National Theatre, I hope that they will not cut down on it. No investment is more likely to produce foreign currency.
I hope that they will seriously consider building special conference facilities for businessmen in such places as Blackpool, for instance. This is a constituency point, but why not? I hope that the Government will remember that this is the one industry in which we save foreign currency where we can discriminate and subsidise to our hearts' content without contravening G.A.T.T. Surely we should take the chance to do this at this stage in our economic history.

1.3 p.m.

Sir John Eden: Although it is always a great pleasure to hear my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), there is something depressing about the regularity of these debates and the fact that, despite our persistence, the Government's attitude towards this industry remains completely unchanged and unenlightened. Yet there is no excuse for this. Even if they had completely ignored all the views of hon. Members on this side, they how have the advantage of two admirable Reports, one from the British National Export Council's committee on invisible exports, and the other from the Hotel and Catering Economic Development Committee. Both lay heavy emphasis on the important contribution of the hotel and tourist industry now and increasingly in future to our balance of payments.
My hon. Friends have said that the industry is a prime earner of foreign currency. I agree that the Board of Trade Ministers do not seem able to comprehend that one can earn money by inviting foreigners here to spend, just as much as by physically exporting. All that the Minister has done in this grave economic situation is to inform the House of some minor alteration to a scheme which was already futile. No wonder that this hotel plan scheme has been described as "a failure, if not a fiasco". Nothing that he has suggested today alters that description.
I wonder how serious the Government are in their determination to rescue the country from the economic difficulties to which their policies have brought us. If the Minister wants to increase foreign currency earnings of industry, they must take this industry seriously and show, by positive action, that they are determined to enable it to add to the strengthening of the balance of payments.

1.6 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I agree with my hon. Friends that the earnings of this industry would in themselves, justify a Minister specially designated to take care of it. If the Minister of State were given this task and no other he could give the tourist industry the benefit which it deserves. In a Question on 20th December, I asked whether he had any announcement to make on any increase in charges for charter holidays, which the Minister has the right to raise or lower under the first provision of I.A.T.A., although it is not, of course, mandatory. Some European countries do not fix charter holidays under that provision—Sweden and Germany, for example—but others do.
The answer I received on this important matter was that a decision would be announced in the near future. I know that the Minister has discussed this for a week or so and the House goes into Recess today. Will the announcement be made during the Recess—that would be wrong—or in a few minutes? If the former, we will have no chance to probe the Minister, whereas, if it happens after we come back, it will be too late. The charter companies must advertise and the advertising season begins immediately after Christmas.
I believe that the Minister will announce an imposed increase in the prices of these charter companies, which would be entirely contrary to the Government's general policy. In this connection, referring to the basic travel allowance which I had raised with him, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote to me:
 I know, however, that the travel industry will do all they can in co-operation with hoteliers to reduce the cost of holidays.
He expects the travel business to keep down the cost and foreign hoteliers to co-operate, yet in the next few days the Government may announce an imposed

increase in the prices of these charter holidays. I hope that the Minister will give a reply on this vitally important matter. The travel industry has made arrangements with many foreign hoteliers who have co-operated to keep down prices. If the charter companies have to make more money which they do not want by raising prices, this will undoubtedly affect the co-operation which we are getting overseas.

1.10 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I have been allotted only one minute and I will, therefore, raise only one point—on investment grants. Yesterday I asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the White Paper on Investment Incentives, Cmnd. Paper No. 2874, still represents Government policy. The reply which I received is very appropriate for this debate. The reply was:
 Yes. The main purposes of the investment grants scheme are to give priority to increasing investment in those sectors of the economy which can do most to strengthen the balance of payments … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1967; Vol. 756, c. 425.]
All my hon. Friends have made a very strong case for the tourist and hotel industry—I declare an interest as a director of a hotel—and they have pointed out that it represents a very effective industry. Will the Minister tell us why the industry cannot receive investment grants as every other industry receives them?

1.11 p.m.

Mr. Peter Blaker: I should like to join my hon. Friends in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) on initiating this debate. I thought that in the short time available to him he put the case for the tourist industry with even greater power than he always does.
We were talking earlier this week about the Government's observance of a certain United Nations Resolution. There is another United Nations Resolution which is relevant today, and it is one for which the Government voted not long ago—to designate 1967 International Tourist Year. The Government have celebrated International Tourist Year with the £50 travel allowance, the Selective Employment Tax and its discrimination against the tourist industry, and with the tourist


industry deprived of investment allowances and unable to obtain investment grants. What have they done to observe International Tourist Year? I suppose that they would point to the hotel loans scheme, and I thought that those of my hon. Friends who referred to it were unduly kind about it. We were told not long ago by the Minister of State that he hoped and expected that the whole £5 million, which was not too generous to begin with, would be allocated by the end of the year. But we learned in an Answer only yesterday how pathetic the results have been.
The truth is that the Government have clobbered the tourist industry in this country as it has never been clobbered before. Is that surprising? Let us observe the condition of the Government benches. We got used to that condition throughout the debates on the Selective Employment Tax 18 months ago. There are deserted benches opposite because the Labour Party are not interested in the tourist industry. They are interested in what they have come to believe is important from their reading of Karl Marx—heavy industry. When it comes to the more modern developments in industry and to the potential earnings of the tourist industry they are quite blind.
The Prime Minister used to be fond of international league tables. For some reason he is not quite so fond of them nowadays. If hon. Members look at the international league table showing the growth in tourist earnings they will find that Britain is well down in the basement. To some extent that must be due to the help which other Governments give their tourist industries contrasted with the penalties which the British Government impose on our tourist industry.
I hope that when he replies the Minister of State will tell us what is the Government's attitude towards the two Reports mentioned by my hon. Friends —the B.N.E.C. Report and the "Little Neddy" Report for the industry. I regard those Reports as very important, and even if the Minister cannot today tell us more about the hotel loans scheme, and even if he cannot tell us what action the Government intend to take on the very important suggestions in those two Reports, at least he can assure us

that as Minister responsible for the tourist industry he is pressing his colleagues as hard as he can to recognise the importance of the industry and to act on those two Reports.
I have one important point to make about those Reports. They were produced before devaluation. We already knew that the industry was faced with a shortage of beds and had had to turn down package tours from the United States even in 1966 because of the shortage of beds. If devaluation is to have the effect which we hope it will have in bringing more visitors to this country and keeping more of our own people in Britain for holidays, we need not merely 10,000 extra beds by 1970, as was said earlier, but thousands and thousands more. This is a critical moment for the hotel and catering industry of this country. They want to know what encouragement, as opposed to penalties, the Government will give them so that they make take advantage of the opportunities presented to them now. I hope that the Minister will tell us something about the implications of devaluation for the tourist industry. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet said that the Government had no policy on the tourist industry. I would say that on past performance they have not even a clue.

1.15 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallaieu): Before I try rapidly to answer some of the questions which have been asked, may I deal with a point raised by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis.) I hope that this does not seem in any way discourteous to the House, but a decision was taken about I.A.T.A. fares late last night after prolonged and very intensive consultation. There was a Question on the Order Paper and a statement was made in answer to that Question at twelve o'clock today.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: This is most extraordinary. I had a Question down yesterday on the subject and I was not even informed, as one might have expected, that a Question would be answered this morning similar to that which I asked yesterday. Had I been informed it would, at least, have kept me in the picture.

Mr. Mallalieu: I am extremely sorry. The hon. Member is always very courteous and I apologise if there has been any discourtesy by my Department. I will read the answer very quickly:
 After consultation with air operators and representatives of the travel trade, I have decided "—
that is, my right hon. Friend—
 that the minimum prices of charter inclusive tour holidays by air, which are governed by Provision I in the relevant air service licences, should be allowed to remain at their predevalualion levels so far as destinations in Europe, Morrocco, Algeria and Tunisia are concerned, during the coming summer season from 1st April to 31st October, 1968.

Mr. Lewis: In view of what I said earlier, when I was speaking in the dark, may I say that I very much appreciate that statement?

Mr. Mallalieu: I will proceed, like everybody else, as quickly as I can. I very much regret the shortage of time.
Like everybody else, I am disappointed that I could make only that one announcement amout the hotel loans scheme—a mini announcement as it has been called. In fact, it is not so mini. The idea that the hotel loans scheme has been a failure is wrong. It is wrong because in the last few weeks, since there have been signs of restriction of bank credit, many people who had looked at the scheme originally and had turned down our offer have come back to us and said, "On the whole, we think that this will be helpful". In those circumstances, it would certainly be stupid not to allow the scheme a further three months to see how it works.
There has been a great deal of criticism about the Government's attitude towards the tourist industry. I am told that we have clobbered the tourist industry. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker produced some figures. Let me give figures, which I find extremely exciting, for the expenditure by overseas visitors in this country in recent years. In 1964 it was £190 million, in 1965 £193 million, and in 1966 £219 million. Everyone may say that that is a very big jump and that it was all due to the World Cup, but I have this morning received estimates for expenditure for this year, 1967. The figure is not £219 million, but £240 million, a record.

I think that that is a most encouraging trend.

Mr. Woodnutt: In spite of the Government.

Mr. Mallalieu: The hon. Member cannot have it both ways. This industry which I, the Government and the House recognise as of great importance, is showing a very substantial benefit to the country in terms of overseas payments.

Mr. Blaker: Can the hon. Gentleman say where we are in the "international league tables" in comparison with other countries?

Mr. Mallalieu: I do not have an estimate for other countries for this year.
In spite of the great improvement in payments from overseas, we still have a substantial net deficit, our payments overseas still being greater than those we received.

Mr. Rees-Davies: What is the deficit?

Mr. Mallalieu: The figure of payments overseas in 1966 was £297 million, so that the deficit was slightly less than about £80 million. I hope that this year that will have been reduced.
Clearly, as a result of devaluation this very encouraging movement will be still further intensified, and it is therefore obviously necessary that we do everything we can to increase the amenities and facilities which people coming here will enjoy. That means all kinds of facilities, not only hotels, but camping sites and so on, and the Countryside Bill which is now going through the House will give us power to make grants for that purpose.
Hon. Members have rightly put the emphasis on hotels. I had hoped that by now we would be able to make a comprehensive statement about the Government's proposals for the hotel industry. We have had a mass of advice, much of it extremely good, and for some time the proposals of the B.T.A. have been carefully studied. The advice is still coming in and only today I have had a request from the chairman of B.T.A. for further consultations about proposals which he would like to be included when the Government finally announce their policy.
I said that I would have liked to have been able to announce it now, but the House will be aware that, as the Prime


Minister said the other day, all schemes for Government expenditure are now being reviewed. There are no sacred cows and my own sacred cow cannot be exempt. However, I hope that shortly after the House meets in January we shall be in a position to make a comprehensive statement.

Mr. Miscampbell: Will the Government bear in mind that there are cows which give milk and some which do not, and will they make a clear distinction when deciding which to slaughter?

Mr. Mallalieu: I hope that we shall get our priorities right. This cow gives not only milk but a substantial amount of cream.
I cannot emphasise too strongly the importance which I attach to this industry. I realise that there are defects in the Government machine, as there have been for years. For instance, catering comes under the Ministry of Agriculture, a provision which goes back to wartime legislation giving the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries control of food and hygiene. I can see the connection between food and agriculture, but it seems anomalous that catering should not come under the control of a Minister with responsibility for tourism. That is not the only anomaly, and hon. Members have mentioned several others. They go far beyond those mentioned today. If there were a Minister of Tourism charged with the responsibilities mentioned, he would not really be a Minister of Tourism unless he had charge, for example, of the National Theatre and looking after museums and all kinds of things which are amenities and attractions to people coming from overseas.
I am still awaiting the report of an Inter-Departmental Working Group on the co-ordination of the Departments with interests in tourism. It has been working extremely hard and we shall see whether from its work we can produce an adequate machine. If we decide that we cannot—this would be right outside my province, of course—I would certainly not have a closed mind about having a Minister of Tourism or a Minister of Leisure. I would welcome a Select Committee, but the difficulty there, as hon. Members know, is that it is extremely difficult to staff all the Select Committes,

and if we get the sort of bother which we were given by one of them earlier, I am not sure that that would be entirely the right answer.
Hon. Members have spoken of the British Travel Association's scheme for publicising Britain's merits as a holiday resort. It is true that this industry not only directly earns foreign currency by attracting people to the country, but does so indirectly by inducing our own people to stay here. In that respect, the Association's campaign will be effective. It is the largest publicity campaign to be inaugurated by any country. Wherever we are in the league of actual earnings, we are right at the top of the league for spending money on promotion. The scheme has just started with a small trial run of television advertising and the major campaign will begin on Christmas Eve. Thereafter, there will be a continuing campaign not only to attract still more visitors from overseas, but to persuade more and more of our own people to remain here and to appreciate the delights which this country can offer.
I reject the idea that the Government regards this industry as of no importance. They consider it to be of immense importance, and that is why for so long we have been trying hard to work out the best ways in which to help it to stimulate itself and to be stimulated. I hope that when in the new year we are able to make a firm and detailed announcement of our plans for the industry, that will be yet a further indication of the importance which we attach to it.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Can the hon. Gentleman say approximately when this policy statement is likely to be made, and whether it will be made by him, the President of the Board of Trade, or the Prime Minister?

Mr. Mallalieu: I would think that it would be of such major importance as to be made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I would hate to be tied down to a matter of weeks, and the only assurance I give is that we shall make it at the earliest possible moment after the Recess.
Not only the Government but the people of the country as a whole are beginning to realise how important this industry is, and I hope that that belief


and understanding will spread widely. I hope that more hon. Members, for example, will take part in the activities of the inter-party Committee which in my short tenure of office I have found to be extremely helpful, and I hope that we shall be able to dissipate for good any lingering belief that being in a service industry is somehow inferior to being in a productive industry. Good service, as can be seen from the sort of figures I have quoted, is vital to our economy, and it also contributes largely to the happiness of our fellow men. Service, whether that of shopkeepers or barmaids or waiters or receptionists, is not just a job, and not even only a profession. It is a work of art, and art of a very high order, and I hope that the country as a whole will recognise it as such.

COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRATION

1.30 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: In introducing a debate on Commonwealth immigration, I am conscious that on 15th November, when the House debated the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, we had a full day's debate on this subject. We then dealt with the two basic problems of entry and of assimilation, and our duties towards those of the immigrant community when they have become full British citizens. I shall not waste farther time on that aspect today, but wish, instead, to deal with certain specific problems concerning entry which are causing bad feeling here and in certain parts of the Commonwealth.
Before I produce my arguments to justify that statement, I want briefly to give the background. If we are to understand the full force of my arguments, we must understand how the Commonwealth Immigrants Act came about, and its effect, first, on the new Commonwealth and, later, on the old Commonwealth.
From the end of the Second World War to 1960 the average net Commonwealth immigration to this country was about 30,000 a year. In 1961, it jumped to 136,000. Not only that, but whereas immigrants previously had come mainly from the West Indies, with a population of about 4 million, by 1961 they were coming predominantly from the Indian sub-continent, with a population of 450

million or more. The problem facing the Government of the day was very serious. In addition, immigrants tended to come from the lowest economic level of their community. They were non-Christians, and many of them were not English speaking and did not share our culture. They produced very special problems.
As a result, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act was passed in 1962. Under it, all immigrants were treated in exactly the same way, but the Home Secretary could exercise some form of cultural or economic discrimination by means of the system of vouchers then introduced. As a result of that Act, immigration during the last six months of 1962 declined to 19,000. It went up to 60,000 in the following year and in 1964 it was 56,000.
In 1965, we had a new Government in power, and the Labour Home Secretary tightened up orders to the immigration officers and reduced the numbers of certain categories of vouchers. The Government also introduced the Race Relations Act which, in some quarters, was regarded as a quid pro quo to counterbalance the fact that the new Government had had to adopt many of the Measures that they had denounced when in opposition. It was generally believed in many circles that the Race Relations Act was designed to prevent discrimination against Commonwealth immigrants.
I justify that statement by quoting from the editorial in the latest edition of Africa and the World. It stated:
 The prime intention of Parliament in passing that Act was to protect non-white citizens of Britain from acts of racialistic discriminaton which are well known, thoroughly documented and a disgrace to a civilised community.
The article later asked:
 Why have no major proceedings been brought against anyone with a white skin?
That implication is not true. Proceedings have been brought, quite rightly, against people, irrespective of colour. The trial of Colin Jordan is a case in point. Nevertheless, in some circles this Act was regarded as a quid pro quo to the tightening of controls on Commonwealth immigrants, who were mainly from the non-white Commonwealth.
In 1965, there was a net intake of 57,000 Commonwealth immigrants. It is fair to say that in 1966 the Act originally


introduced by a Conservative Government was beginning to tell on the old Commonwealth, and complaints started to come from Australia, Canada and New Zealand. I maintain that during this present year, 1967. these complaints have multiplied, and feeling has run high, particularly in Australia. That is the background of my argument.
Both parties—this is not a party political issue—have leant over backwards to be non-racial and to treat everyone alike, irrespective of colour, but I believe that, in so doing, successive Governments, having first managed to annoy the new Commonwealth by introducing the original Act, have, since then, infuriated many citizens of the old Commonwealth.
Personally, I do not believe that the colour of a man's skin matters a damn. What does matter is his cultural and educational background and, to some extent, his economic status. The people of the old Commonwealth have the same cultural and educational background as ourselves. Those who come here are not normally among the lowest wage earners in their own country. Some, but as yet a minority, from the new Commonwealth fall under the same heading: they speak English reasonably well, they have high economic standards, and can, therefore, be well absorbed into our society. Many from India or Malaysia probably have very much older cultures than our own.
On the other hand, I suggest that the majority of the new Commonwealth immigrants present a different and much more difficult problem. Most of them are, as I have said, non-Christian, they do not speak English, they have little educational background and, largely speaking, they come from the lowest wage-earning section in their own parent countries. They do an excellent job—I would not suggest that they do not—but they are far more difficult to assimilate. Further, they have many dependants. It was stated in the debate on 15th November that nearly 90 per cent, of the present intake was made up of dependants.
A further argument relates to emigration from this country. In a reply to a Parliamentary Question not long ago, we were told that about 50,000 professional workers a year are leaving this country, mostly for the U.S.A. and the

old Commonwealth. These people represent the brain drain, and are, by and large, unlikely to be replaced from the new Commonwealth countries. A Gallup Poll published in the Sunday Times on 20th August, 1967 showed that 50 per cent, of Britain's 2½million 18-to-20 age group wanted to emigrate, and the countries they chose, in order of preference, were: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States and South Africa. Perhaps I might be forgiven for saying that if the Government's planning goes along on its present lines this figure may well increase as we move into 1968.
It is a serious matter that this potential outflow is being replaced each month, as the Minister admitted in our last debate, by about 1,100 Pakistanis of the age of about 15 or 16. Is this what we want? I have no objection to their colour, but, as I said, many of them do not speak English. In that same debate it was. stated that no fewer than 444 schools of 40 local education authorities have over 30 per cent, of immigrant children. This shows the strain that is being placed, or could be placed, on our educational system.
What of the future? I do not want to stress this, but it should be mentioned that I asked the Home Secretary in correspondence in August this year if he could assess the number of Commonwealth immigrants during, say, the next 10 to 15 years. He explained how difficult it was, that it would obviously be an approximation—and a very broad approximation—but the figures that he gave me were that in 1971 we would probably have 1,350,000 Commonwealth immigrants, in 1976 1,650,000, and in 1981 1,950,000. However, there is an important reservation, because these figures do not include immigrant children born in the United Kingdom of Commonwealth immigrant parents. Therefore, we do not have the full figures of the immigrant community.
I am giving the House these figures because they illustrate that the net result of what is going on today is that, while the British brain drain is continuing, we are exchanging part of our younger population with that of the Indian subcontinent. I accept that that is a gross exaggeration of what has happened so far, but it is factually true and it is not what people in this country want.
When the Minister replies, perhaps he will be able to tell me how many British citizens last year were given Indian or Pakistani nationality. The figures, if he can produce them, will show that this is very much a one-way traffic; that their nationals are coming here and getting British citizenship and very few of our people are going to India and Pakistan.
This brings me to my main point— reciprocity. The current rate of British emigration to Australia was given the other day as 90,000 a year, to Canada as 63,000, and to New Zealand as 16,000. Surely nationals of countries receiving so many British immigrants should receive special consideration here. The nub of the case that I am putting is that many Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders think of themselves as British. They still talk about returning to the mother country. Few in the new Commonwealth think along these lines. Why should they? Yet, during the past two years, there have been many complaints about the treatment of Commonwealth nationals from the old dominions who have come to this country.
The first one that I read about was in a letter in the Daily Telegraph two to three years ago. It was an amusing one concerning an Australian lady who had married an American. On arrival at London Airport she said to her husband, "I am going through the Commonwealth queue and I will wait while you proceed in the foreign queue, because I will be through a long time before you". In point of fact, she came through the Commonwealth queue three-quarters of an hour later than her husband because she had been held up by an immigrant family who had taken a lot of the immigration officer's time.
This was the first case that I noticed, but this has been increasingly recently. Many complaints have been received from Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders that they do not seem to be wanted here. They are subjected, quite rightly, to questions by immigration officers. I am not questioning that right, but the general air seems to be, "Why do you want to come here?", which is against the normal traditions of this country and against the desires of the people who have always felt themselves to be British.
Coming down to concrete cases, which I will not dwell on for long, because they are not really very good examples, two in particular have received a lot of publicity in Australia, I think they therefore should be mentioned.
The first is the case of Mr. Brownlie, who exceeded his permitted stay in this country and was, for various reasons, kept in detention for 30 days until the matter was fully dealt with. I do not want to waste the House's time. I accept that the fault was largely Mr. Brownlie's. He tried to dodge regulations. He did not ask for assistance. He could have had all kinds of assistance. The High Commissioner could have been informed. Mr. Brownlie must bear the responsibility for what happened to him.
I mention this case because it received, immense publicity in Australia and the full answer was not known until some days or even weeks later. Therefore, this case unfairly did this country considerable harm in Australia. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about it when he winds up the debate.
The second case concerns a Mr. Watkins, who landed from the s.s. "Fairstar" not long ago. When asked if he was coming here as a visitor, he said that if he could get some work he would take it. This caused investigations to be made, which meant that his passport was removed for a couple of days. Though it was again the young man's own fault, it caused adverse comment in Australia.
Perhaps I can sum up by quoting a paragraph from Time and Tide of 14th December this year:
 One of the most respected of this Australian ' colony' said at the weekend, ' Would it not be a good thing for all concerned if your new Home Secretary, Mr. Callaghan, gave out an instruction to individual immigration officers, some of whom seem to be a bit truculent, to be a bit less harsh with Australians? '
Lower down the page it said:
 Young Australian visitors feel indignant about their treatment since the introduction of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1965. Before that they could visit Britain freely, as often and as for as long as they liked.
I am not in any way criticisng the officials who have to implement the legislation passed by Parliament. Through no fault of their own these things happen. It may be because of bad publicity or


perhaps because our regulations have not been explained properly in Australia, Canada or New Zealand. The point is that this is causing anti-British propaganda in countries which have sprung from our shores and which have been so closely associated with us for so many generations.
I suggest that we have taken the old Commonwealth for granted for far too long. I believe that the treatment of young visitors has caused more alarm and despondency in Australia than such things as devaluation, our east of Suez policy, or even the Common Market. Australians come here after school to see what the Mother country is like. They are young men and women fully educated, but not very well off, and who want to do some temporary work to pay their way while in this country.
What are the exact regulations that today govern this class of person from Australia, Canada and New Zealand who have been coming here for generations? I accept that the real worker has to get a voucher and go through the full system. That is fair enough. I accept that students are exempt. They are defined clearly because the regulations say they must do so many days or so many hours' study a week. These worker students fall half way between the two and I want the Minister to take some administrative action to relax the controls on this type of visitor-cum-immigrant many of whom only want to stay for up to two years at the outside. I ask this, because the present policy is having an adverse effect on Britain's reputation in the old Dominions—countries who share the same Sovereign. These countries willingly take British immigrants, so surely they are entitled to special consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) wanted to develop the subject of Gibraltar, but, unfortunately, he has had to leave the House. I want to remind the House that Gibraltar is a small Colony. It is under blockade, and has been for some years. Recently, it held a referendum to show its complete loyalty to this country, it is known that Spaniards find it easier to come here than Gibraltarians. Looking at the figures, we find that in the last year

hundreds of Spaniards have been allowed to come into this country, but only 42 Gibraltarians. The Minister has said that Spaniards can come here only on a permit and stay for one year whereas Gibraltarians, if they are allowed in, can stay for the rest of their lives. The point is that many of these Gibraltarians are like the category of Australians that I have referred to—people who want to come for a stay of two years and do temporary work during that period. They also should be given special consideration. We owe a lot to Gibraltar in return for the loyally she has shown in very difficult circumstances. The least we can do is to give Gibraltar a quota on the same lines at Malta.
To sum up, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act was wholly non-racial, or, to put it another way, it affects people of all races. This is probably the correct approach, but it has had the effect of closing Great Britain to many traditional immigrants and to long-term visitors from the old Commonwealth. This is wrong, and it should be corrected by administrative action.
The present position is gravely damaging to traditional and important links between the mother country and Australia, New Zealand and Canada, and I hope that the necessary action will be taken before it is too late. I realise only too well that the Minister cannot take action today, but I hope that what he says in reply will show that we in this country are doing all we can to preserve the traditional right of people from the old Dominions to come to the country which they regard as their mother country.

1.51 p.m.

Dr. M. S. Miller (Glasgow, Kelvin-grove): The House will have observed that the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) spoke with, I thought, unusual temperateness in this debate. I am bound to say, however, that "me thinks the hon. Gentleman doth protest too much" about not laying any stress on colour.
I am impressed by the hon. Gentleman's argument about the old Commonwealth, and I agree with much of what he said, but I am concerned about the new Commonwealth, too. Immigration has always raised objections and forecasts of dire consequences which have


never been fulfilled. I can only say that many aspects of Commonwealth immigration into this country still need to be repeated and stressed. It is well known that certain of our essential services would collapse were it not for immigrants from the new Commonwealth. For example, 60 per cent, of hospital doctors under consultant status are coloured immigrants. Undoubtedly, the whole Health Service would not just be under strain but would disintegrate altogether if it were not for these doctors who are helping us so magnificently and have done for a number of years. We know also what would happen to our transport services if we did not have coloured immigration.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice has spoken of assimilation. In my view, this word ought not to be used so freely in the context of immigration. We should talk about integration. There is a big difference between assimilation and integration. Many of the immigrants who have come to this country during the past 100 years, or even the past 1,000 years of our history, have integrated themselves beautifully into the community and become part of it without necessarily assimilating, without necessarily becoming similar to everyone else in the community. Differing and different cultures in a society benefit and enrich that society. It does not follow that immigrants must assimilate into the community. Some will, and I have no objection to that, but others will feel that they wish to retain some of their own characteristics, and this is a desirable estate of affairs for the host community.
I have here a copy of one of the medical magazines which I have sent to me as a doctor. I see on the front page that an Indian doctor with an M.A. and M.B.Ch.B. of Edinburgh University spent three days on hunger strike outside the Indian High Commission Office—in Glasgow, I regret to say—pressing his demand to be repatriated or deported to India because he could not find employment in this country as a doctor. Apparently, we are so profligate in our use of medical manpower that we cannot find a job for an Indian doctor who qualified in this country, and qualified in one of our major medical schools.
It is not just against immigrants from the new Commonwealth that objection is

taken and has been taken. I have here a quotation from a paper called the "North Briton", in which John Wilkes, writing about Lord Bute, said:
 The Scots, in addition to being outstandingly unpleasant specimens of the human race, are also complete aliens in this country. We quite understand that they want to get away from their own country; but why should we be the sufferers? Now Lord Bute tells us that he is a Briton, and as such entitled to be the Prime Minister of Britain. To which our reply is that he is a North Briton and that he should stay somewhere North of the Tweed. Now there is a lot of talk about the Act of Union; but even if there were a hundred Acts of Union, it would not alter the fact that the Scot is a complete and utter alien to us and that his presence here is intolerable. We will not tolerate him in any capacity, much less in the capacity of a Prime Minister. And we say to Bute and his ilk, this is our attitude and it will never change. Englishmen, arise and kick the stranger out ! 
That is an indication of the kind of thinking which motivated some of the elements in our society 200 years ago. No one will deny the tremendous benefit which the mixing of Scots has been to the community south of the Border. There has been assimilation, but I would say that the Scots have integrated very well into the English host society.
I know that there are problems involved here, but I counsel the House, the British people and those who formulate British opinion not to exaggerate the problems occasioned to our society by the admixture of different races. We should keep a sense of proportion. It is most important in this day and age that we, as the Mother of Parliaments, should take a definite stand against the pseudo-scientists who peddle racialism in various guises. It may be that we have to err somewhat on the liberal side in so doing, but it is something which we must do not only from a moral point of view but from the point of view of fairness, justice and the interests of our own society. It is essential that we take this stand and do not deviate from it. There are people who peddle the pernicious ideas of racial superiority in face of the knowledge of reputable scientists the world over that the potential of the human race is very much the same regardless of skin colour, social background or cultural antecedents. The potential is very much the same, and it is potential that we are considering here. It is potential that we should be getting out of human beings.
I hope that the Government will stick to the principles which they have enunciated. That which commends itself to me is the indication that they recognise that complete rigidity of principle and standardisation of organisation are neither possible nor desirable—

Mr. Wall: I take it that the hon. Member does not mean that we should not, by administrative action, be able to make special efforts to maintain the traditional rights of young Australians and New Zealanders to come here?

Dr. Miller: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that restrictions on immigration should have nothing to do with colour of skin, even white skin. I would be very pleased to see an increase in the number of people coming from such countries as Australia and New Zealand. There should be less of a one-way traffic and more of a two-way traffic.
I ask my hon. Friend to keep in mind the necessity to make the stand to which I have referred. Although we may feel that our influence in the world is not as great as we think it should be, we know that there are still large numbers of people who look upon our country as a refuge and haven. I do not mean simply those coming in looking for work. Ours is a country which upholds principles for which it has fought, and for which other people are also fighting. If we keep to a fair and just immigration policy we will not be letting these people down.

2.5 p.m.

Mr. Antony Buck: The whole House is glad to have this opportunity of discussing such an important topic. We are glad for a number of reasons and the first is that immigration, when as concerns such a small and highly-populated country as ours, assumes important proportions. This debate gives the Government a further opportunity to make known their views. We are especially glad about this, because in the debate of 15th November many points were raised about the operation of the immigration system.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) was primarily responsible for these questions, and in some cases the Government

gave a "spot" opinion. Now that they have had time for more mature reflection we hope that they will be able to tell us how they intend to meet the points raised. This is an excellent "follow-up" debate and we should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and Mr. Speaker for this opportunity.
I want to raise the point about members of the old Commonwealth, which was deployed by my right hon. and learned Friend in the earlier debate. It was pointed out then and has been stated again today, that considerations here are of a somewhat different character from those applying to other parts of the Commonwealth. There is a very considerable outflow from this country to these countries, and it has been asked whether it is sensible to have the whole panoply of the system of control in relation to these countries.
This time last year I had the pleasure and privilege of being in Australia, basking in the sunshine. There, I enjoyed nothing but kindness and lavish hospitality except for a certain amount of badinage about my "Pommy" accent and habits. All this was good fun. There was not so much good humour when we came to discuss the way in which young Australians coming to this country are treated. There is a case for special consideration of the Old Commonwealth countries, and especially of the young people from those countries who wish to come here for a short while.
This is quite a different problem from that posed by the rest of the Commonwealth. These people from the remainder of the Commonwealth wish to live here permanently and want to bring their dependants with them. This is not the case with those coming from Australia, Canada, or New Zealand—or it is so in only a very small number of cases.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals)indicated assent.

Mr. Buck: I am glad to see the Under-Secretary nodding. Presumably he agrees that this is a different problem and one which should be tackled.
We have raised this point on more than one occasion. Although it was raised in the November debate by my right hon.


and learned Friend there was no reference to it by either of the Government speakers. I have been through the speeches again with a fine toothcomb. This time last year this matter was causing great concern, and all hon. Members acknowledge the difficulty here. We want to strengthen Commonwealth ties and to ensure that these people are not subjected to unnecessary controls.
Since we have had a change in the top management at the Home Office since the last debate, it might be helpful if we had a restatement from the Home Office of its continued allegiance to the twin principles which have brought about a fair degree of unanimity on this subject. They are, first, that it is necessary to have strict control and, secondly—and this point was stressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller)—while people are lawfully here they must be treated with complete equality. There must be no second-class citizens.
There is next the very vexed problem of dependants. I would like to ask the Under-Secretary to deal with the suggestion put forward from this side of the House, that we should take steps to determine the size of the problem.
At present, dependants are coming here in large numbers. About 40,000 arrived in 1966 and, from what we have been told, the number for this year is likely to be larger. What will it be next year, and the year after that? We do not have the slightest idea of the numbers who will be entitled to come in future, and much of our estimating must be done in terms of pure guesswork.
We are today coping with the problem of dependants of people who came here on vouchers in the early days of the legislation and the dependants of those who arrived before the Commonwealth Immigrants Act was passed. We do not know how many Commonwealth citizens have these statutory rights to entry. The Government should seriously consider taking steps to find out how many there are.
I do not see why it would be unreasonable to ask those who have entered, either with vouchers or before the Act was passed, "Let us know how many dependants you may wish to bring here in future". There could be a system of registration, with plenty of time for

people to be registered. A clause for hardship cases would, of course, be necessary. Let us at least establish a register so that we may know how many dependants will have the right of entry; and then we will begin to understand the real nature of the problem. Such a register would have the practical advantage of enabling proper inquiries to be made in the countries of origin. Such things as ensuring that dependants are truly dependants could then be checked.

Mr. John Fraser: I apprehend that the hon. Gentleman is talking about the registration of dependants of immigrants. Is he aware that to attempt to form such a register might cause resentment among Commonwealth immigrants because they would feel that, if the number of persons on the register was very large, there might be future restrictions? They might, therefore, feel that they should not give the required information. Otherwise, they might give the wrong information.
In any case, if the purpose of the exercise is to create a register for future immigrants, a better way to go about it would be to conduct a sample survey, and not to do it by interrogation in the way the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Mr. Buck: I appreciate the problems raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I suggest that we have gone beyond the stage when, because this might cause a small amount of annoyance to a minority of people, it should not be done. This is a trivial aspect. I do not agree that they would take the view that, following the compilation of the register, stringent restrictions would be introduced. In any event, in such a serious matter as this, if a minority of people hold the sort of feelings the hon. Gentleman believes they hold, they must be overruled, regrettable though this may be.
As to people giving false information, this is unlikely if they know that occasional checks will be made about the dependants named on the register. Naturally, the whole thing would have to be done as tactfully as possible and I believe that the balance of advantage in compiling such a register outweighs any other considerations.
A number of my hon. Friends and I are concerned about the problem of teenage boys—mostly Pakistanis—who are coming


here in large numbers. I am referring particularly to youngsters who are nearly 16 years old and who come here to join an all-male community. Often they come to their fathers in this country. The then Home Secretary said six weeks ago that he was considerably worried by this problem. He added that he was not in a position to suggest ways by which the Government intended to deal with the matter, but six weeks have passed and I hope that, with a new Home Secretary, the Parliamentary Secretary will say what the Government intend to do to deal with what seems to be a socially undesirable problem and something which is disadvantageous to the young men in question.
At the same time, I recommend the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the problem of dependants who come here and live in grossly ill-housed communities. We do no great service to them—and this particularly applies to young men and girls who come here—if we allow them to come here only to live in appalling housing conditions. Especially in considering the problem of young males who come here to join all-male households, is it possible, by legislation or administrative means, to ensure that they are properly housed?
The former Home Secretary gave an analysis in November of the problem of Asian immigrants to this country—from East Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, and so on—and who hold British passports. I understand that more than 10,000 such immigrants arrived in Britain during the last nine months. The problem was analysed by the then Home Secretary. Perhaps the present Home Secretary will take his predecessor's analysis a step further and indicate what the Government intend to do about this problem. Have there been talks with the various Governments involved?
Have the Government given more thought to the question of entry certificates? I am appalled by the present position, when more than 1,000 people are allowed to get here each year but are then sent back to their countries of origin. This raises considerable human problems and the only way out of this difficulty is the introduction of a certificate system, with the certificates being issued in the countries of origin.
We have reached the point in the history of our immigration laws and affairs when action is needed to deal with some of the problems which have been reiterated today and which were adduced on 15th November. Action really is necessary. Many hon. Members are getting restive. On many occasions we have discussed and analysed the problems, but it appears that the Government are not taking positive steps to solve the principal ones. I hope that the Under-Secretary will reveal some of the positive steps which the Government are taking, or intend to take, to deal with the difficulties, some of which are of considerable magnitude.

2.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) realises that it is always quicker and easier to ask questions than to give answers. He recited a number of questions about the issues which we debated at some length on 15th November, concerning entry certificates and the problem of dependent children, which concerns my present as well as my former right hon. Friend. I shall not, just before Christmas, attempt to make a detailed statement. I assure the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) that the question of dependent children, and particularly the social problems which arise from those joining all-male households, is very much in mind. We are not simply waiting. We are having useful consultations with social work organisations and other bodies.
I welcome the debate and the introduction of it, in very temperate and reasonable language, by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), because he dealt with a part of the subject which we did not adequately cover on 15th November. Because I want to consider seriously the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, I shall not attempt to go into the problems of emigration from the new Commonwealth, except to say one thing. We often talk of the problems of Commonwealth immigrants. I am glad that recognition has been given today to the opportunities which exist as a result of people coming to this country. We are faced with problems but it is true that were it not for those who have


come from the old and new Commonwealth this country would be much worse off than it is. Many of our services and professions would be under-served and worse served were it not for those who have come here. I draw no distinction between those who come from the old Commonwealth and those who come from the new Commonwealth. We should get the situation in perspective.
It is true that over the years an increasing number of people have come from Australia, Canada and New Zealand, mainly as visitors or as working holidaymakers. The numbers have continued to increase regardless of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. People want to come and do come here. While a substantial number of people go from this country to Australia, it is interesting that in 1966 the number of United Kingdom citizens who emigrated to Australia was smaller than the number in 1965. The hon. Member said that over 40,000 dependent children came here last year. In fact, the number was over 30,000. The figure has slightly increased.
There has been reference to Gibraltar. There is no doubt that there exists in the House a great deal of sympathy and respect for Gibraltar. While it is not my place to talk of our links with Gibraltar, this matter must inevitably influence our attitude to Gibraltar. It must be recognised, however, that Gibraltar is part of the Commonwealth and that the Commonwealth Immigrants Act applies to it. The referendum and any constitutional changes which may be negotiated do not deal with the movement of people.
The situation of Spaniards has been raised. This is a quite different matter. Spaniards come here to take up employment. They are permitted to come here with Ministry of Labour work permits. They are not permitted to settle here immediately. Normally they come for a brief period and then return to their own country. To compare the number of Spaniards who come here with the number of people from Gibraltar who come here for settlement, which is a relatively small figure, is not reasonable. People come from Gibraltar on holiday or business and these short-term visitors are very welcome. There has been some pressure to the effect that Gibraltar should re-

ceive special consideration in terms of employment vouchers. This is not the moment to make an announcement, but this matter is being considered very sympathetically, especially by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.
I wish to concentrate most of my remaining remarks on Australia. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Haltem-price for warning me in advance that he wished to refer to this question. He said that there has been strong feeling in Australia. It is true that Australians resented the fact that there ever was a Commonwealth Immigrants Act which affected them at all. Australians look on this country as home, and we are all glad that they do so. None of us would want to put obstacles in the way of the links which exist and which we hope will continue to exist between Australia and this country. Sometimes situations relating to individuals are blown up out of proportion, and sometimes quite inaccurately. Hon. Members would be unwise to make statements relating to particular situations without having ascertained the facts.
The statements made in the Press and by hon. Members about the two cases referred to by the hon. Member for Hal-temprice have done a good deal of damage.

Mr. Wall: By me?

Mr. Ennals: No, not by the hon. Member for Haltemprice. I should like to touch on these two cases before going into the generality of the situation. The number of cases in which there is a dispute concerning Australians is very small. Whenever there is one, it can often be blown up because of statements which are unfair.
Mr. Brownlie, a young man of integrity and good parents, arrived here and was admitted as a visitor for six months on 8th July, 1966. By 6th January he had stayed for six months. He could then, had he wished, have made an application to stay here longer and there is virtually no doubt that he would have had an extension. He did not make an application. He did not consult the Home Office or his High Commission. By accident—and it really was an accident, a skating accident, as a result of which he was taken to hospital—his passport was found. It was discovered


by the police that he had exhausted his authorised stay by approximately eight months. He admitted that he had done so and has not sought to extend his stay.
He decided, first, that he did not want legal aid; secondly, he did not apply for bail; thirdly, he said that he did not wish to be in touch with his High Commission; fourthly he did not wish to be in touch with his parents. He said that he wished to see the matter through on his own. Unfortunately, the fact that he was detained awaiting trial was not known to his High Commission nor to this House. I think that he recognised afterwards that it was very unwise of him not to take advantage of the facilities which existed here. The Home Office and his High Commission are very helpful. Happily, the Home Office and the High Commission have very cordial relations.
The other case referred to by the hon. Member for Haltemprice concerned Mr. Wayne Watkins, who arrived at Southampton on 30th November with an entry certificate endorsed as a visitor. He was not immediately admitted but was held for 48 hours because he admitted to the immigration officer that he came not as a visitor but to stay, and that a short-term permit was of no use to him. He said that he had incorrectly informed the entry certificate officer of the purpose of his coming. He arrived here with 15s. in his pocket, no return ticket, no relatives in this country and no indication of what he wanted to do.
It would have been utterly irresponsible of the immigration officer, knowing what he did, to have admitted Mr. Watkins without finding out more about him. Mr. Watkins was sensible enough to get in touch with the Australian High Commission. We never put obstacles in the way of that sort of contact. After discussions, it was agreed to admit him for a brief time. The Press blew up this matter as if it was wrong, as if the immigration officer had behaved imprudently and as if the Government did not wish to welcome Australians to this country. That is not so. All Australians who come here are welcome. We want to discover ways for them to know it and for us to encourage them to come here.
Therefore, this narrows down the question of whether Australia should come under different legislation from other parts of the Commonwealth. We could say that the principle should apply to Canada and New Zealand, too, as old members of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Wall: Not only because they are members of the Commonwealth, but because of reciprocity. They take many of our own citizens.

Mr. Ennals: That is a point which I do not think has much validity. Far more people go from this country to Australia than come here, but that is because Australia is a country of emigration. Australia goes to great trouble to attract people. She is not overcrowded, as we are. We are not beseeching the world to come and fill the vacant spaces of the United Kingdom. Those two things put those countries in a quite different category.
I was considering whether we should discriminate in favour of one or more countries within the Commonwealth, and I do not think that we can. The 1962 Act applied to all Commonwealth countries, old and new alike, and its administration is impartial. I am certain that when the party opposite introduced the 1962 Act, they intended that it should be administered impartially so that every member of the Commonwealth was in a similar category.

Mr. Bernard Braine: Does the hon. Gentleman altogether dismiss the fact that Britons, Australians and New Zealanders are people of one blood and bone?

Mr. Ennals: That is not in dispute, although I am not certain what revelance it has to the argument.
In opening the debate on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone said that we should look to a time when there would be a fresh look at the relationship of ourselves and the various Commonwealth countries. He did not go very far with that. He would have got into difficulty had he done so, unless he was prepared to argue that Australia, because of blood, colour and race links, should be put in a different category from other parts of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): I put to the Home Secretary a much more concrete, point, disregarding any relationship and disregarding immigration from this country to those countries. There was last year, and there has been for some time, a net outflow of Australian citizens from Great Britain to Australia and, therefore, it was futile to pretend that any kind of social problem could possibly arise by a more generous treatment of Australians, Canadians or New Zealanders when there is a net outflow of the citizens of those countries.

Mr. Ennals: That is right. To come to the crux of his proposal, however, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would obviously have to suggest an Amendment to the Commonwealth Immigration Act and that certain parts of the Commonwealth should for that purpose be treated differently from other parts of the Commonwealth. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman puts his argument forward, I believe that he is exaggerating the problem.
As was said by the hon. Member for Colchester, the vast majority of Australians who come to this country do not want to settle here. They have very few difficulties in coming here. In 1966, of the 82,000 Australians who came here, 46,500 came for visits of three months or less and a further 12,500 came for longer visits. Another 17,500 were people already settled here returning from temporary absence abroad. The balance includes students, passengers in transit and others, including a very small figure of 165 who came in with labour vouchers —a tiny proportion by comparison with the very large numbers who came here for temporary purposes.

Mr. Buck: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving those figures, which illustrate cogently the point which I was making. Is it not an absurdity that Australians coming here should be subjected to the whole panoply of a system which is designed to deal with people who will come and live here permanently and bring their dependants over?

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Member suggests that they are subjected to a "whole panoply ". It is true that they have to present their passports and are asked questions. That is because we have to

make certain that they come for the purpose for which they say they are coming and that that purpose is a recognised one. The case to which I referred of the young man was a good case in point.
The majority, apart from business men and tourists coming for short stays, are young people. There has been a long tradition of young Australians coming to this country for a protracted visit during which they also travel around Europe, eking out their funds by taking temporary employment. I am glad to say that our control creates no difficulties for those young people here. We are glad to welcome them. We regard them as working holidaymakers.
They are admitted usually for 12 months in the first instance and we see no difficulty in extending their stay to up to two years or so, which is as long as they normally require. During the time they are here, they are able to take employment to pay their way. Our concern is to see that they come for that sort of purpose rather than for permanent settlement. As has been said, the vast majority of them do not want permanent settlement. Having had a year, 18 months or two years here, they return to their own country.

Mr. Hogg: If that is so, will the hon. Gentleman look again at correspondence which I have had with the former Home Secretary about a Miss Morrow, a young Australian actress, who lived in my constituency for a time, and see whether he could not have been a little more generous about prolonging her stay? She only wanted to act, which is a most unpermanent form of occupation.

Mr. Ennals: I do not have the case in my recollection. I will certainly look it up. I receive a number of cases of individuals who for some reason, want to stay here longer than the endorsement in their passport entitles them to stay. We take a liberal and understanding attitude on these questions. While there are sometimes difficulties, in the vast majority of cases the young Australian is able to do what he wants. It must, however, be recognised that if we were simply to exclude certain parts of the Commonwealth from the operation of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, that would be much resented.
I will be told that there is a cultural bond—and that is true—which is happily retained by the fact that more and more Australians come here. Other arguments are put forward that because so many people from this country go to Australia, reciprocally we should permit any number to come here. The argument which would be seen most widely in the world and in this country, however, is that somehow we had one rule for white and another for the coloured, one rule for the old Commonwealth and another for the new Commonwealth. I do not believe that that is what the House would wish. I do not believe that it is what either the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone or the hon. Member for Haltem-price would wish. I am certain that it is not what the country or the Commonwealth would want. To have legislation which was as openly discriminatory as that would do much to render damage to the relationship which exists between our own country and individual Commonwealth countries.
I have had very close and friendly contact in recent weeks with the Australian High Commission concerning some of the general and individual matters which have been referred to. I have been very glad to learn that the High Commission has recently taken steps to convey to all Australians in this country that they should abide by the requirements of our control, which means that after, say, six months, if that is the duration, they should apply for extension. If they do that, they certainly need expect to encounter no difficulties from the Home Office. The rare case of difficulty which attracts a disproportionate amount of attention arises when people disregard the control and get themselves into difficulties of their own making.
It is my concern as, I hope, it is of hon. Members to secure better understanding of the realities of the situation on all sides so that these difficult cases need not arise. Our own High Commission in Australia has done a great deal to let it be known the way in which the Commonwealth Immigration Act applies, and recently a senior officer of our

Immigration Service made a special visit to Australia for this purpose to help to ensure that there was a general and full understanding.
I would conclude with two points. The first is that I hope that when there are incidents in which a particular issue arises of a case of a young man hon. Gentlemen and, in so far as my remarks can be directed to the Press, they also will not leap into drawing assumptions which are not founded upon fact. The hon. Gentleman in referring to the Brownlie case said it was a long time before a statement was made. As soon as the situation was known both I and the Australian Government, I having had an immediate meeting with representatives of the High Commission in London, took steps to ensure that in Australia the facts were known. But then statements were made, and editorials were written, which were repeated in Australia and which led to misunderstandings. I think those sorts of misunderstandings are due to statements which are not based on fact.
I want to reiterate on behalf of the Government that we welcome visitors from Australia to this country. Not only do we want them to feel close to us; we want them to know that we feel close to them, that their presence here is warmly welcomed, that we shall do every thing we can to remove any difficulties or disadvantages or any problems which might emerge, because we are anxious to maintain close and friendly relations not only with the Government of Australia—and particularly at this time— but also with Australia's people.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I may be allowed to intervene irregularly, before I call the next speaker, to say that I am sure the House would wish me to pay tribute, at the end of the year, to all the servants of the House, without whose devotion to their work the work of the House would be gravely handicapped. I know that every hon. and right hon. Member appreciates excellent service generously given.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the House that this next debate ends at 3.30.

MERCHANT NAVY (FLAGS OF CONVENIENCE)

2.42 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby): Mr. Speaker, may I, first, thank you for the opportunity of bringing before the House this important, complicated and vital matter of the challenge which faces our own British merchant service from those ever-increasing numbers of foreign merchant vessels using flags of convenience. We may sometimes forget that Mr. Speaker is himself a Member of Parliament with constituency interests. I must confess that I had in mind the close connection between yourself, Mr. Speaker, and the port of Southampton when I asked for this debate. I will not say how many times I had to make applications before my hopes were realised.
In a debate between a back bencher and a Minister it is a great help to know that the Minister has a real knowledge of the subject under discussion, and while my hon. Friend the Minister of State has had high responsibility for the Royal Navy and he may miss the halcyon days of swinging in a boatswain's chair between two destroyers—which I had the opportunity of doing—we on this side of the House and, I believe, those on the other side, too, welcome the fact that he has a great knowledge of the Merchant Navy and is the Minister responsible at the Board of Trade for that service. As part of the Christmas spirit I notice that the Opposition Front Bench looks a little more formidable at the moment by the presence on it of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor).
A "former naval person", the late Sir Winston Churchill, believed that it was upon the Navy, under the providence of God, that the safety and well-being of these islands chiefly depend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nelson."] Nelson may have said it first, but it was repeated by Sir Winston Churchill. I say that it was Sir Winston Churchill who believed that, and I think that in this case Sir Winston was right; and if Nelson was right as well, I have no great complaint against Nelson on that score. If they both said it, what they said is valid today. I like to believe that in that reference, although

he was referring mainly to the Royal Navy, he also included the Merchant Navy, particularly in regard to our well-being in peace and war.
We have had this last year two examples of the terrible cost to this nation when the merchant fleets have been prevented from bringing home our food and raw materials and taking abroad the results of our skills and industry. The spirit of Christmas may have difficulty in finding its way into the Palace of Westminster and this Chamber, but we know, and many millions outside should also be aware, that it would be a very poor Christmas indeed if we had to rely entirely on the food we grow and the raw materials we have here at home.
Certainly we can, and should, use our resources and expand them, yet we shall always need our merchant fleets to bring us the riches of the world beyond our shores that we cannot produce for ourselves. The golden caravans of Samarkand never saw one-tenth of the riches which have passed through our ports to make this a better Christmas and a better New Year than we would otherwise have had.
The British merchant fleet, owned, registered, operated in and from the United Kingdom, carries much of this import and export trade, carrying its own flag, the Red Ensign, the old "Red Duster", over the oceans of the world. The majority of the world's shipping carries the flags of countries with which those ships have close links of trade, of registration, or of operation, but—and it is a very big "but" that is growing even larger—more and more ships fly the flags of countries with which they have only the remotest connection. Their flag is only a flag of convenience to secure for their owners unfair advantages in taxation, and the avoidance of other regulations with which genuine shipping from genuinely maritime countries have to comply. More than one-tenth of world shipping now fly flags of convenience— the nearest thing to piracy, in my opinion, since the "Jolly Roger". I think that everyone can recognise that to have standards of safety and seamanship is good, and that it is necessary to follow those acceptable standards.
In world shipping today the merchant fleets total 182 million tons gross. They have increased over the past year by


roughly 10 million tons—almost 11 million tons. Included in this total are 64,198,000 tons gross of oil tankers, representing 35·3 per cent, of the world fleet, compared with 35·2 per cent, in 1966 and 34·3 per cent, in 1965. The number of ships of 50,000 tons gross and upwards has risen during the year from 71 to 118, including an oil tanker increase from 67 to 105. There are also nine ore and bulk carriers in this category.
I hope that this record of growth will continue. Certainly, there is a record total of ships on order at the moment. The total order book of the world's shipyards reached a record figure of 39,550,636 tons gross in September. I take the figure from Lloyd's Register of Shipbuilding Returns. This was 4,203,383 tons more than at the end of the previous quarter. Almost every country showed an increase in its total order book. There were 1,882 steamships and motorships totalling 13,395,785 tons gross under construction throughout the world at the end of September.
There has been more investment in shipping. There is an increase of 50 per cent, in investment by the shipping industry in 1967 forecast by the Board of Trade in its annual survey of British industrial investment. The survey shows that while it is difficult to forecast the amounts to be charged to capital expenditure the forecast is based on firm indications. The future of shipping is never certain. There have been great challenges and changes, but it seems that the future of shipping is to be treated in the same adventurous way as it was in the past.
The Chairman of the Cunard Steamship Company, talking about the future of shipping, said this:
The days of individual lines operating on their own are rapidly disappearing. There will inevitably be a painful period of transition in human terms as well as financial. For the future the pattern is already discernible— larger groupings within both British and international shipping, larger ships, in many cases spending most of their time at sea and not in port, lower overhead costs ashore, a better service for our customers, fewer people working the ships, perhaps, but a better future and better conditions for the numbers of people that the shipping industry can actually employ.
Mr. John Lunch, the Director of Finance and Commerce of the Port of

London Authority, had this to say about the forecast for the future as regards our trade with Common Market countries:
Trade with Common Market countries will double by 1980. Creation of a simple door-to-door freight service would allow the international trader to reap great benefits. International containerisation could be virtually a new business system.
Mr. Lunch went on to say that he considered that, whether Britain joined the Common Market or not, trade between the two areas would reach 20 million tons by 1980. Of this, 14 million tons would be handled in containers, and 3 million tons would pass through the Port of London.
Speaking about future competition, Mr. Douglas S. Tennant, the General Secretary of the Merchant Navy and Airline Officers' Association, said that shipping was a highly competitive industry which suffered from a great deal of unfair competition. He went on to say that young men now going to sea were entering an era of change and challenge. They would feel the impact of automatic devices which were being increasingly used in ships. This would lead to increasing efficiency, but would also have an impact on manpower needs of the future. Seafarers, therefore, had to be equipped by training and education to take such changes in their stride. He said that he wanted to see his members become, by training and education, not only officers of ships but also qualified to be directors of shipping companies.
British shipping is a real investment, and the Report of the Committee of Invisible Exports makes it quite clear that, among the service industries which play so great a part in our balance of payments, the shipping industry alone is responsible for at least a quarter of our invisible balance of trade.
Of all the countries engaged in shipping, the greatest fleet making use of a flag of convenience is that of Liberia. Liberia has the largest merchant fleet in the world, and Britain has dropped to second place. The Liberian fleet totalled 22,597,808 tons gross, and the British fleet 21,716,148 tons gross at 1st July of this year. Liberia's fleet increased by almost 2 million tons during the year to July, while the British fleet increased by only 174,000 tons. Very few of Liberia's ships are genuinely Liberian. Most of them are really American or Greek


owned, but, unfortunately, Lloyd's does not provide a great many details of them. The largest fleet increase during the year was recorded by Japan, whose fleet has almost doubled since 1962.
Liberia also tops the list of oil tankers, with a total of over 12 million tons, which is an increase of more than 800,000 tons during the year. Next comes Norway, and Britain follows, third. Liberia is also top of the ore and bulk carrier list, with a total of over 5 million tons gross. The population of Liberia is about half a million more than that of the City of Liverpool, but she now has the largest merchant fleet in the world. As I have said, most of her ships are owned by American and Greek companies who use the system to avoid taxation and various other regulations to which the ships of genuine maritime nations are subject.
Recently, Liberia made her fourth attempt to secure a seat on the Council of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation. Fortunately, the maritime countries in I.M.C.O. would not allow this to happen, and it failed. Undoubtedly, I.M.C.O. has done good work. It was involved, for example, in the recent consultations about traffic lanes in the Channel.
It is time that something drastic and effective was done about this flags of convenience racket, and it is only Governments who can do it. In 1958, the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea adopted the principle that there should be a "genuine link" between a ship and the State, whose flag she flies. The Merchant Navy and Airline Officers' Association's General Secretary was a member of this country's delegation to the conference. In addition, the International Labour Organisation, in which seafarers also play their part, drew attention to the social implications of the "genuine link". It is high time that the principle of the "genuine link" was strictly and effectively applied by this Government. If that were done, the fleet of Liberia would vanish overnight. Having regard to past, present and future casualties among flags of convenience ships, of which the "Torrey Canyon" affair is but one incident, I hope that our Government will raise the issue with I.M.C.O. and its member Governments.
There are also political implications, but I shall not dwell upon those today

because I want to speak mainly of operating difficulties. I know that there is no easy and speedy solution to the problem. Anyone associated with the shipping industry knows that it requires cooperation from all the maritime nations, as well as the initiative of our Government. If we did not know that already, I am sure that my hon. Friend will tell us so when he replies.
We are entitled to ask if the Government are fully aware of the dangers of the situation. We are entitled to ask if they are seeking the closest co-operation with our own Merchant Service and shipping industry. We are entitled to ask the Government to work for the closest cooperation with the maritime nations who also suffer from these flags of convenience operators. We expect the Government to take the lead in working for a halt in the growth of this menace and then its reduction, until the oceans of the world are free for honest men in honest ships flying honest flags.

2.56 p.m.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: The House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) for raising this subject, which I wish we discussed in the House very much more often.
It is a sad day for this country to know that the size of our merchant fleet has now been topped by a flag of convenience. There is no doubt about the extent of the problem, but it is harder for us to specify exactly what the Government should do. It is fairly easy to see the difficulties, because shipowners operating from this country work for an extremely low return, which is usually summarised as about 2 per cent.
There are certain taxation disadvantages, though here I must give the Government their due because, in the 1965 Finance Act, some concessions were made to shipping. The practical advantages of the British flag are not what they used to be in earlier days, when we had a larger Royal Navy and a bigger fleet. All this adds up to the encouragement of people to use flags, of convenience, which is a serious matter.
In the few minutes at my disposal, I want to go beyond that and draw attention to the recent Report of the British Exports Council on Invisible Earnings, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned in


passing. It contains an important section about shipping, to which I have endeavoured to draw the Government's attention.
The fact remains that, although we are the world's greatest importers and although we import too much, as we know from our recent debates, and it is a buyer's market, we are not using shipping under the British flag nearly enough for those imports which we can ill-afford. Taking our imports by weight, only 35 per cent, comes in British ships, whereas 45 per cent, of our exports go out in British ships. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Board of Trade to do something to encourage importers bringing in these goods to use our shipping very much more. Another important import is timber. Between 4 and 5 per cent., or £70 million worth, of timber coming into the country from the Baltic, often under very favourable exchange rates, comes in foreign rather than British ships. We do not have to look very far to see why it is that the British merchant fleet does not get all that it might seem to deserve.
This excellent Report on invisible earnings ends up with certain recommendations which, in our present situation, I hope that the Government will take seriously. I must draw to the Government's attention the fact that the fourth of these recommendations is that they should do more to resist flag discrimination and subsidies abroad. I believe that there are ways in which this can be done. I know that the Minister will say that we are in danger of discrimination, but I do not think that that is really the whole answer. I believe that much could be done to encourage ships to register under a British flag.
I hope that after this short debate we shall see some action taken by the Government, particularly at this time, to try to give a little more help and encouragement to British shipowners.

3.0 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I, too, would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) on raising this important and extremely topical subject today. The quotation which he gave in the earlier part of his speech, and which is very true today, dates not from Sir Winston Churchill, nor Lord Nelson, but

back to Charles II. In those days the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy were part and parcel of the same organisation. In fact, the Royal Navy consisted of merchantmen who were armed for their own self-defence. This is a lesson for us in the present day.
I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman's plea that the Government should pay attention to the many difficulties of one sort and another, which he has outlined, which face the merchant navy. I believe that a tribunte is not sufficiently often paid to the Merchant Navy and all that it stands for. Not everybody realises the extent to which the nation is utterly dependent, both in peace and in war, on the 100-plus merchant ships which reach the ports of this country from abroad every day of the year.
The immense contribution which the Merchant Navy makes to our balance of payments has been mentioned, but a point of real importance which I should like to emphasise is the need for continually cementing the bond between the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy, and I urge the Minister, who is on familiar ground in this respect, to chase up his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and get a little more clearly across to the personnel of the Merchant Navy what consideration is being given to organise and protect them, particularly in wartime convoys, antisubmarine warfare—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know the hon. and gallant Gentleman's enthusiasm, but he must come to the subject of the debate.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I am surrounding the problem of flags of convenience with the other problems which confront the Royal Navy, but, in view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I shall pass on from the importance of aircraft carriers. I hope that this will not be lost on the Minister.
There is an important point which has not been made about these flags of convenience. A certain amount of criticism has been heard, particularly in the United States, about ships flying the Red Ensign trading in the port of Haiphong. I am not sure of the exact statistics, but it is certain that some of these ships are plying under flags of convenience of a particular sort. These are ships which,


in the early 'fifties were, in effect, sold to the Chinese Communists, but because of regulations in Hong Kong at the time were chartered indefinitely, and I think that they are chartered now, for one dollar a year.
They are using this rather specialised form of flag of convenience to go around the oceans and trade into Haiphong, and are thereby bringing considerable disrepute on the Red Ensign and everything for which it stands. I hope that the Minister is aware of this, and will be able to say something about it when he replies to the debate.
I think that everyone will agree that the Merchant Navy has earned a unique reputation throughout the world over many years. It has a unique reputation for its ships, for its management, and for its officers and men. I am sure that the whole House would like to see the Government doing everything in their power to ensure that the Merchant Navy is in a position not only to maintain, but to enhance, its reputation as time goes by.

3.5 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, it might be appropriate to mention a subject which you raised, namely, our great appreciation of the staff of the House. We all appreciate the courtesy, consideration and patience shown by members of the staff, particularly in view of the late hours which we sometimes work and the difficulties which they encounter. We sometimes take them for granted, and perhaps at this time of the year it is appropriate to express our gratitude and appreciation to them.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Taylor: We are all grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) for raising this subject. We have had the benefit of the well-informed views of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles). This is a very interesting problem, but also a very serious one. Reference has been made to the extent to which we are dependent on the British fleet, and also to the great advantages which we receive from it by way of invisible earnings.
It is rather unfortunate that the main reason for these flags of convenience is the high burden of taxation which is imposed, not just by us but by all the great trading and maritime nations. The growth of flags of convenience fleets is very alarming indeed. For example, I understand that Liberia has only one ship which can effectively be called her own, the "William S. Tubman", which was named after the country's President, but there are about 1,500 ships of more than 500 gross tons, about 15 per cent, of the world's tonnage, which are registered in that country. The most recent figures which I have are those issued in June, which showed that more than 24·8 per cent, of the world's tanker fleet was registered in Liberia, Panama and the Lebanon, and that about 17 per cent, of the entire world fleet was registered in these countries.
One thing which is of special interest is that the so-called advantages of flags of convenience are not available to British shipowners. United Kingdom shipowners, even if they wished, could not resort to the device of registering ships outside the Commonwealth, because the Merchant Shipping Act lays down that a ship may be registered as a British ship only when she is owned by British subjects, or, as the Act says
 bodies corporate established under and subject to the laws of some part of Her Majesty's Dominions, and having their principal place of business in these Dominions.
Apart from that, if ships are registered in Bermuda or elsewhere. British companies may establish a separate company there, but they are precluded by Section 468 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, from transferring assets from the United Kingdom to that company without the permission of the Treasury. Furthermore, any dividends which might be remitted from Bermuda to a parent company in the United Kingdom would be subject to United Kingdom taxation.
In the United States the position is quite different, and Mr. Erling Naess, who operates a large fleet of tankers, has claimed that about half of the American-controlled tanker fleets sail under the flags of Panama, Liberia and Honduras. Much of the other part of Liberia's fleet is financed by the Americans, but controlled and operated by Greeks and Italians.
To each United States company, where the wage levels imposed by their merchant marine are so high, the advantages are considerable indeed. The registration fee in some of these countries is just over 1 dollar 20 cents per net ton, and the tax is only about 10 cents per net ton. The main reasons why these vessels are registered in these small countries are, first, the burden of taxation. In Liberia it is very small—a registration fee of 1 dollar 20 cents per net ton, and an annual tax of 10 cents per net ton. In countries like America and Britain, the taxation burden is extremely heavy. There is a more serious problem, that of profitability, and, as my hon. Friend said, the British merchant marine is faced with difficulties at the moment because of low profitability.
The other factor is the high cast of maintaining ships, and the Americans have the highest costs in the world. Those who operate flags of convenience fleets state that the reason is largely strategic. In case of war, the United States would need a large reserve fleet. This could not be maintained in competition with other countries if they did not have flags of convenience, unless there was the alternative of a substantial subsidy. At least if there were a subsidy it would be straightforward and open, and would have the advantage of not damaging other countries.
It may be that for strategic reasons the United States wants to have a reserve fleet of tankers under flags of convenience, but it is doing damage to marine countries like ourselves. On the other hand, some of these flags of convenience fleets are growing because the companies are able to retain profits for new ships and reserves and, as1 my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West has said so often, this is one of the main problems of British shipping: at times of high profitability the companies cannot plough back these profits to build up their fleets, and at times of low profitability the matter is irrelevant.
Liberian flags of convenience fleets and others in a similar position are able to retain much of their profitability, which can be used for new ships and reserves. British shipowners, despite all these difficulties, have been doing well in building up their fleets and keeping up to date,

but this is a continuing burden, and a growing one.
One point must be made, especially in view of the Prime Minister's comments at the time of the "Torrey Canyon" disaster. It would be very misleading to think that those ships which fly flags of convenience are old, battered hulks which are not suitable for ocean voyages. No less than 85 per cent, of Liberia's fleet consists of ships which are ten years of age and under. It has a large, modern tanker fleet. The "Torrey Canyon" was registered 100 per cent. Al at Lloyds; the master was very experienced, and the manning was not open to question. The owners were a subsidiary of a reputable oil company, and the ship had previously been chartered by the British Petroleum Company. It was not a cut-rate job. The rate was established in the open market. A British ship was not available.
In those circumstances, many people in the shipping world, including the Chamber of Shipping and some of my hon. Friends, were surprised by the Prime Minister's comment that flags of convenience could be used to economise on the cost of imports and to increase oil profits. This might be so in some cases, but it was not so in the case of the "Torrey Canyon", and it would be unfair to imply that ships operating under flags of convenience are all old and substandard. It is true that many people are concerned about old Liberty ships but, generally speaking, the majority of fleets flying flags of convenience are modern and progressive.
I was interested to read an article on standards in the Sunday Times on 2nd April, 1967, which stated that flags of convenience countries have all been brought within the safety agreements negotiated through the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, and Liberia has signed I.M.C.O.'s agreement on oil pollution.
A fair point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West and the hon. Member for West Derby was: what do we do about it? It is a serious problem. Unfortunately, we cannot dictate to the world what should be done about these problems. What can be done? One answer would be retaliation—perhaps to take action against ships


flying flags of convenience. Hon. Members on both sides of the House in the past have pointed out that this would involve enormous difficulties and would not be in our interest, since we have a large fleet which goes to every port in the world. Retaliation could bring reverse retaliation, and we might be retaliated against. It is not a practicable proposition, and not one hon. Member has suggested it today.
What we must do is to make it more attractive for our own shipping companies by providing the maximum encouragement and incentive to our own fleets to register in this country. It is interesting to note that in 1959 the Greek Government—now going through some difficulties—had a very serious problem, because they found that almost all their ships were being registered under flags of convenience. They therefore adopted a "welcome home" policy and provided substantial tax advantages to shipowners who registered their ships in the homeland. In 1959 the Greek fleet grew by 500 per cent. That is a point worth noting.
It is not simple to register British ships under Hags of convenience, as can be done in the United States and in Greece. On the other hand, we are in stark competition with companies operating major merchant fleets and which have major tax advantages. Something must be done, and I believe that the answer is more encouragement to our own merchant marine.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West pointed out that the budget of the Chancellor gave an excellent concession to our shipping companies, which was very much appreciated. It showed that the Government had knowledge of the problem, and were concerned about it. But they have not done enough. More must be done. I hope that the message which the Minister will send out in response to the fluent and well-informed speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West and the hon. Member for West Derby will be a message of hope for British ship-owning companies which will enable them to look to the future with the same confidence as they have done in the past.

3.16 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): It is
a great pleasure for me—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member requires the leave of the House to speak again. This is one debate.

Mr. Mallalieu: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
By leave of the House, it is a great pleasure to begin my second speech today by joining the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) in what he had to say about the staff of the House. I say this in the presence of an hon. Friend who is very much senior to myself. We know the strains and stresses to which we have subjected the staff during the years, and I am delighted that recently those strains and stresses have begun slightly to diminish. This is an excellent procedure, and I hope that we shall continue it throughout our proceedings on the Finance Bill and on other Measures of the kind on which, in the past, we have spent so many hours.
With a little hesitation, I want to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) in one particular, namely, the tribute that he paid to the Merchant Navy. At Christmastime many members of the Merchant Navy will be far from their homes—perhaps at sea—where things are not always comfortable. It would be nice for this House to send them a message of good will and a thank you for the wonderful service which the Merchant Navy, since the days of Charles II, has given to the nation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) has done a great service in allowing the House to ventilate this question of flags of convenience. What I have to say about it may be somewhat disappointing to him, but it is as well that we should get the whole issue into perspective.
It is true that the size of the fleets of the flags of convenience countries has been growing. I believe that the latest percentage figure is 17 per cent. Liberia and, very much below Liberia, Panama, are the principal flags of convenience fleets. I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) that it is a sad thought when the Merchant Navy is passed by the flags of convenience counting registered fleets. I have a feeling, like the league tables and so on, that we discussed earlier in the day.
What matters for us is to have an efficient and adequate Merchant Navy and the fact that, because of the convenience of these flags to those other nations, another nation has been able to rise above ours in terms of numbers— but this does not mean that our real position as a mercantile nation has deteriorated. What are the advantages—

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Before he leaves this point, would the hon. Gentleman confirm that he would like to see the Merchant Navy not only efficient and adequate but profitable?

Mr. Mallalieu: Yes, I would like to see anything British profitable.
Why do people use flags of convenience? They do not have to pay taxation on profits which are retained in the country of origin and there is the advantage—if it is an advantage—of their being bound by no national laws or agreements on seamen's wages. It is for the latter reason that so many of these ships are United States ships, because of the high wages demanded there. This is probably why—although I think it unlikely—the bulk of the remainder are of Greek origin.
Our attitude is that we subscribe to the 1958 Convention on the High Seas, which requires a genuine link between ownership and the country of registration and that the Government of the flag which the ship carries should exercise supervision and control. Another view of successive Governments for many centuries is that we want to maintain, as far as possible, a liberal shipping policy, in the sense of each ship being free to go where trade demands. This is an enormous advantage to a country like ours.
Hon. Members have said how difficult it is to solve the problem. What should we do? We do not like flags of convenience, but we would advocate international action to get rid of them only if there were strong reasons affecting our national interest. One could be the question of safety, with which the hon. Member for Cathcart dealt very fairly. Both Liberia and Panama and, for all I know, those countries which make less considerable use of these flags, subscribe to the international convention about safety at sea and the load lines, and provide that ships

are inspected, as some of ours are, by one of the classification societies. The majority of these ships are new, and I am certain that, whatever advantages they find in taxation and so on, the owners would never allow these immensely valuable properties to be placed in the hands of people unfit to run them.
I agree entirely with everything that the hon. Member for Cathcart said about the "Torrey Canyon". It was a first-class ship with a first-rate crew and an experienced master. I still hold up my hands in disbelief at, and am completely unable to explain, what happened on that bridge. It had nothing to do with flags: it was an aberration. If I had appointed the Board of Inquiry, which I did not, I would have appointed a psychiatrist as one of its members. Therefore, there is no argument at present in favour of acting on grounds of safety.
Another reason might be gross undercutting of wages by these fleets. The wages paid under the Liberian or Panamanian flag are certainly lower than those under the United States flag. So are the wages paid under the Red Ensign. There is already complete comparability in wages among the European maritime nations and the owners under the flags of convenience. This was not true in the past, when there were good grounds for sharp union complaint. I believe, however, that this is no longer true.
The third possible reason for taking action would be if our shipowners were at a serious disadvantage. This was true years ago, certainly, when the flags of convenience owners could use their tax-free profits to build their new ships, but, as the hon. Member for Dorset, West mentioned, some changes were made in the Finance Act, 1965, and it is now possible for our owners to spread their depreciation as they choose and also to attract investment grants. Even so, although the competitive position may not be exactly comparable, our men are on reasonably equal terms—

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would refer to the ability of our importers to do more than at present, when they are importing only 30 per cent, by weight in our ships, and that he would say that more could be done in that respect to help British ships.

Mr. Mallalieu: I take the point. The hon. Gentleman mentioned timber from the Baltic, which is a specialised trade. Although we do not have much of that trade, we do have more of iron ore and other bulk cargoes in which we specialise. As he said, anything that can be done without appearing to discriminate, to induce our importers to use British bottoms, the better it will be for our Merchant Navy.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having given us the chance to discuss this issue. If there were cause—primarily affecting British interests, but, in terms of safely, affecting the interests of the whole world—for seeking international action, we should do so, but, for the reasons which I have given, I do not think that it is necessary at the moment.

CRUDE SPIRIT DRINKERS (TREATMENT)

3.29 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Hilton: The problem which I am raising today— the treatment of crude spirit drinkers— has occupied the House before. It has certainly occupied the attention of most voluntary organisations in my constituency of Bethnal Green, as well as the attention of the local authority. A special Review Committee on the problem was set up by the London County Council just before it went out of existence. That Committee made an extensive report which contained a number of recommendations which would be of value to those studying the problem.
I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for having given me this opportunity today to raise the problem on the Floor of the House, and particularly for having given me the chance to explain in detail to the Ministries responsible exactly what I think will happen in the East End of London if they persist in taking no official action whatever about this problem. I informed the Home Office, who are also concerned with the problem, and if there is no spokesman present from the Home Office, that is certainly not because I have failed to notify them.
I raised the question of crude spirit drinkers in the House in November last year. On that occasion the Minister of Health told me that he was awaiting a

survey of the problem and that it might guide him when he made some decision on the matter. He was certainly not unhopeful that he might be able to do something arising out of that report. I waited a year, until 11th December, before putting down a Question asking him what stage the report had reached and when he expected to receive it. I also asked him whether he had taken any cognisance of the fact that in the East End of London the situation had already reached boiling point, that the local authority had met and had decided that they could do nothing in the problem, and yet the interests of their residents demanded that the Government Departments concerned did something about it.
Those were the two points which I put to the Minister of Health, and, without wishing to be rancorous in any way, I must say that I regarded his Answer as discourteous, in that he did not deal at all with any of the matters which I had raised on 11th December. He completely ignored the points which I had put to him, and in his Answer he simply said that he had taken some advice on the matter and that voluntary treatment was available. He said nothing about the report—whether the report was in process of being compiled or when the House would have the report. He said nothing about the considerable anguish which exists in the borough of Tower Hamlets. In fact, he completely ignored the problem.
When, in my supplementary question, I asked him what kind of voluntary treatment he meant, he went from discourtesy to impertinence by saying that there was a five-bed unit for alcoholics at one of my local hospitals. It was impertinence, because this reply showed either that the Minister had no desire to deal with the problem or that he knew nothing about it, because no one who knows what is happening in the East End of London among these crude spirit drinkers would seriously suggest to the House that a five-bed unit for alcoholics goes anywhere near touching the problem.
There is a difference between an alcoholic and a crude spirit drinker, and the House should get that difference quite clear. I know alcoholics—and I am not putting this forward as something on which I deserve to be complimented—


who are able on a day-to-day basis to run a business and to conduct themselves reasonably. When they resort to the bottle, it is a distastrous part of their lives, but it does not completely incapacitate them from doing something useful. Anyone who has seen these crude spirit drinkers wandering around the streets of my constituency, as I have seen them, knows the difference between the alcoholic whom I have just described and the shambling and mentally and physically broken-down inhabitant of the bombed sites in Bethnal Green. Yet I am told that a five-bed unit exists for alcoholics on a voluntary basis and that that is the answer to my question.
I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his courtesy in attending today, as the Minister is not here, and to tell him that to the best of my knowledge there are 200 crude spirit drinkers in the area which I represent. That figure is to the best of my knowledge, but I now know that some organisations might quarrel with my statistics and state that there are even more methylated spirits drinkers in the East End of London. In this matter, at least, I want to be conservative and will not overplay the number. This social problem of crude spirit drinkers is taking place in an area which I would say surpasses most other London boroughs in the great social problems that exist for the residents, quite apart from the problem of the crude, spirit drinkers. This is another burden which the residents have to bear.
What does it mean to the residents? For the information of all the do-gooders and all the lady bountifuls who have been travelling into the East End by car, and who are able afterwards to slip out of the area in their cars and to leave the problem behind, I would tell them what the problem means to the residents of the area. First, there are a number of parks in the borough of Tower Hamlets which are kept going by public money for the benefit of the citizens of the area, but which simply cannot be used by those citizens because they are constantly inhabited by methylated spirit drinkers who are conducting themselves there in a way which most hon. Members have never seen.
Not only have my residents to witness such conduct, but their children have to

witness it, too. The only alternative, so as to prevent the children from seeing constantly what is going on, is to say that these parks, initially provided for them, may not be used by them at all because they have been taken over by the crude spirit drinkers. Every day in the area in which they live the residents are subject to seeing all manner of public indecency committed by crude spirit drinkers, both men and women, who have completely lost mental and physical control of their faculties.
Those are the problems, and sometimes they are accentuated. At a meeting of residents the other night one of them told me that at 3.30 in the morning he was awakened by somebody banging on the door. It was a crude spirit drinker pleading to be let into the house. He said that it was not possible to let him in. The resident was a man with a wife and children and, even in a feeling of Christian compassion, no man in that position could let such a crude spirit drinker into the house. But that crude spirit drinker stayed there, and in the morning that resident's doorstep was covered in excrement and urine. No one came along and disinfected it or cleared it up for him. The family had to do it themselves. This is the fall-out which they suffer from the problem in my constituency.
Some of the residents have asked me, "Why cannot the council do something about the problem?" Naturally, the first thought of any ratepayer is about action by his local authority. He thinks that they ought to be able to do something when he is suffering a social evil in this way. In fact, the local authority are powerless. They have no powers even to clean a methylated spirits drinker. To the best of my knowledge it is illegal compulsorily to wash anybody, so that the local authority cannot legally clean up a methylated spirits drinker without committing an assault, for which no doubt some official could be arrested. Local authorities can do nothing about this problem except go to the Government Departments concerned, put the problem before them as forcibly as possible and ask them to accept their responsibilities.
This has been done. Not only have I raised the matter in the House, basically


with the Ministry of Health, but representatives of my local authority have seen the Home Office. I am seriously dismayed at the lack of response which a very good local authority have had from these Departments. The borough of Tower Hamlets have had to deal with a great many social problems, and they have dealt with them successfully where that lay within their power, but when they go to Government Departments, and prove to the best of anybody's requirements that a grave problem exists in the area which cannot be dealt with by local means, they certainly deserve a better response from the Home Office than that which they received, and I deserved a better response in the House from the Ministry of Health than that which I received.
Once the residents have had it explained to them that the local authority is powerless, they ask about the police. I pay tribute to the police in my constituency, H Division of the Metropolitan Police, and part of the tribute should consist of the information that the local superintendent has the very best relations with the Residents' Association, which is complaining most bitterly and which has tried to do everything in its power to help with this trouble.
What does this problem mean for the police? There is not a single hon. Member who would like the job of an ordinary policeman on the beat when he has to arrest a meths drinker. If the policeman has to arrest him, it means that the van in which the meths drinker is taken to the police station has to be fumigated before it can be used again; the cell in which he is incarcerated has to be fumigated and there is a terrible stench all over the police station, especially if the meths drinker urinates, and the other prisoners, who may not be there for that kind of thing, also object. In addition, the policeman himself has to be cleansed. Nobody can cleanse the meths drinker, but the policeman has to suffer.
The next day the policeman has to take the meths drinker to the magistrates' court, but there is not a magistrate in London who wants a meths drinker in his court in the morning, especially because of the smell which accompanies him. He wants to get rid of him as soon as possible, and so he may give him one day's imprisonment, which means that a few

hours later the meths drinker is back in my constituency, doing exactly the same kind of things. It is heartbreaking for the police to be expected to deal with such a situation, and it is heartbreaking at local level when the Home Office at national level is not prepared to do anything which would ease the task of the police.
Some hon. Members have suggested to me that voluntary bodies could do something to ease the situation, and I understand that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) will be later saying something about what voluntary bodies can do. I want to deal with that from the point of view of someone who represents the area and who has been in close contact with the Residents' Association since he was elected, especially on this problem, and with every other organisation in Tower Hamlets dealing with it.
I have great reason to be thankful for the voluntary bodies in the East End of London which throughout many years have helped to care for some of our people who were destitute—especially in the old days—and who now deal with modern problems. But any voluntary body which tries to tackle a problem which is too serious for it to tackle successfully, a problem which is completely beyond its resources in terms of manpower or money, ceases to be helpful and becomes irresponsible. There have been voluntary associations in my area which have given crude spirit drinkers a night's lodging and some meals, and lately others have lived at the same level in order to help them. Throughout the years none of them has been successful and, because of the very nature of the problem, could not have been successful. The problem has not diminished as the voluntary organisations have come in, but in fact has increased.
The burden on the police has been increased. The local council has been prepared to tolerate perhaps more than any other council in London, and it has appealed to Government Departments for something to be done. The final result has been the growth of the Tower Hamlets Residents' Association, an extremely strong and vigorous organisation. This has all happened during the period when voluntary organisations have been given the right to tackle the problem, but


during which time they have not been successful.
The Tower Hamlets Residents' Association has come in for some criticism. It has been attacked by people who believe that intellectually they have the answer to the problem and should be allowed to work it out voluntarily, people who are contemptuous of my constituents in the Residents' Association and who say that the residents should be grateful for living in an area in which there are social derelicts, that they should be thankful for having some of this terrible fallout and being able to contribute in this way to the rehabilitation of others. It is said that in some way or other it ennobles the residents. The residents of Tower Hamlets have no desire to limit the right of anybody to be ennobled, and if anyone who takes that view wishes to exchange his residence outside Tower Hamlets and come inside to be ennobled, I have plenty of constituents ready to exchange accommodation tomorrow.
The Association has done tremendous work for the borough, because it has canalised individual protests against what is happening in the area and, without it, the individual protests might have erupted into violence. I can give one example which relates to one of the parks which I mentioned earlier, Itchy Park— there is a fascinating history of why it is called that, but I shall not go into it now—a place favoured by crude spirit drinkers. There were such public scenes of indecency by meths drinking men and women not so long ago that 12 women residing in the area decided to take action themselves and to go to the park. Goodness knows what would have happened if they had got there, but the Residents' Association restrained them while at the same time telephoning the police and telling them what was happening and managing to contain the situation.
I suggest to the House in all seriousness that there is a limit to which the association can be expected to restrain people who are daily being subjected to these indecencies, and if there is any question of any meth drinker sexually molesting one of the children of these residents the association could not be responsible for the results—and that is a definite possibility in Tower Hamlets,

because so far the Government have done nothing about it.

The Parliamentary Secretary to die Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): I am listening to what my hon. Friend is describing most carefully, and I am beginning to understand the problem as he sees it, but I am not clear about what positive action by Government Departments he is suggesting.

Mr. Hilton: My hon. Friend will find out as I proceed. The fact that I have waited a year between putting down Questions shows that I am not impatient and that I am prepared to give the Ministry every chance to do something about the situation. I now want to deal with what the Ministry can do.
There has to be some compulsion. I know that any hon. Member who in this democratic assembly suggests compulsion has to be able to show that there is a great need for it and that it does not cut across the liberty of the individual. If we are discussing the liberty of the individual, I must put forward the right of my constituents, as individuals, to have the liberty to live in decency, and not be subjected to all these public indecencies.
Secondly, I have described the difference between the alcoholic and the crude spirit drinker. The crude spirit drinker has no control over his mental or physical abilities and capacities. Here is one way for the Ministry to take action. I also mentioned the L.C.C. report resulting from a committee's deliberations in 1964. The Ministry was aware of that report, and I cannot understand why it did not take action on it. Paragraph 64 of the Report states:
 The evidence received and discussed in this report seems to point to the need for a special unit in a psychiatric hospital or a special treatment unit, to which crude spirit drinkers could be admitted, either informally, or compulsorily under Parts 4 and 5 of the Mental Health Act, 1959, or by the use of some other legislation to be framed.
I advise the Minister to study that report to see if anything can be done.
It is very galling to the residents in the area to know that their problems are caused by methylated spirits drinkers, and yet to see in the area hardware stores and every other kind of shop related to such stores, freely selling methylated


spirits to these people. That is my reason for wanting to see the Home Office representative present, because control of methylated spirits sales is a matter for that Department.
If control over the sale of methylated spirits proves so great, could not the Home Office and the Ministry of Health together try to evolve a method of adding a powerful emetic or other repellent to the methylated spirits so as to make them almost completely impossible to drink?
I have pointed out that a problem exists and that voluntary effort has failed to solve it. That being so, I ask the Ministry to offer some hope. I ask for an assurance that the Ministry is seriously concerned and will try to do something about the problem. Otherwise, the Government Departments concerned will be failing the meths. drinkers themselves, who need this treatment. These people are citizens. The Departments will also tail the constituents in the Tower Hamlets area, and the borough council, and perhaps be responsible for all these parties finding themselves in an inflammatory situation. That is why I hope that the Ministry will offer a little more hope than it has done in the past.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am glad that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Hilton) has raised this particularly difficult problem. Though I speak for from my accustomed place, I want to make it quite clear that I do not in any sense speak for my party nor, unlike the hon. Member, do I have a constituency interest in the matter.
Some time ago I became associated with a number of young people who are interested in this problem. That is why, with the Minister for Overseas Development, I became a sponsor of a united appeal which, after a series of marches, held a candlelight rally at Hyde Park last Sunday which was addressed, apart from the sponsors, by the Bishop of London and by Lord Soper. The movement therefore has fairly respectable sponsors.
The hon. Member has voiced his anxiety in terms of crude spirit drinkers, and although I, too, will concentrate on that point, I know that he will agree that in many ways the problem is wider. Basically, we are considering the "drop outs" from our society. Not all of them

are crude spirit drinkers. Among them, there are ex-prisoners, alcoholics, the mentally disturbed, drug addicts—people who have rejected our society and who reject us. In many ways, they are the most hopeless of our fellow citizens, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we must try to see that for these people, in the words of a cliché "While there is life, there is hope." I propose very briefly to pose three questions to the Parliamentary Secretary, and to try to answer them. First: how big is the problem? Second: who should tackle it? Third: how?
First of all, how big is the problem? In 1965, the National Assistance Board came to the conclusion that there were 13,000 homeless single persons. The Salvation Army put the estimate very much higher than that. The Ministry of Social Security thinks that about 900 or 1,000 people in Britain sleep rough. The estimate of the voluntary organisations of which I know anything is that that figure is, perhaps, about right for London alone. I therefore think that the figures are greater than the Government Departments recognise. That points to the need for further research.
Secondly: who should tackle it? When some time ago with the Minister for Overseas Development, I held a Press conference, I was asked this question, but in terms of an assumption that the Government alone should tackle the problem. My answer, which I hope will be endorsed by the Parliamentary Secretary was that, although, of course, the Government were bound to play a leading part—perhaps a major part—there was still room for the work of the voluntary organisations, just as in regard to hospitals there is still room for the National League of Hospital Friends, and still room in cancer research. My answer to the second question is that it is a job both for the Government Departments and the local authorities—to whom I shall refer in a moment—and also for voluntary organisations.
Lastly, we have the most difficult question, which the hon. Gentleman raised: how should this be done? Here, the main argument is whether we should have compulsory treatment. I recognise the sincerity and, indeed, the force of the point of view of the Tower Hamlets Residents' Association, which was put


forward by the hon. Gentleman. Something like the opposite view is held most forcibly by the Simon Community which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has been in conflict with his local borough residents' association.
I am no spokesman for the Simon Community, which consists of those of the Catholic faith, but I think that I understand the point of view of its members. They operate at what is called "failure level"; and on people who have been given up by most other organisations as hopeless. Therefore, they do not, in the ordinary sense, look for cure but for containment. They offer shelter and friendship to those who otherwise would have none, and they hold that that is enough justification for their work. I must say that I find it difficult to argue against that particular point of view.
What they seek to do by way of containment is to offer the possibility for the man—or the woman, as the case may be —to help himself so that step by step— and I think that any other approach is self-defeating—it is possible for him to haul himself out of the misery of Skid Row into which they have sunk.
The alternative to some such approach as this is, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated, some form of compulsory treatment; that in some way we should take these people out of their wretched shelters, where they sleep rough at night, give them forcible treatment, and try, in this way, to effect a cure.
I know of nobody who has studied this matter deeply from the point of view of the social problem who believes that compulsory treatment is the right approach. With respect to the hon. Member, who has put his view very moderately, I do not agree with him. I think that there are better possibilities than those of compulsory treatment.
To sum up, I have put three questions and tried to answer them.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he is saying and I find myself closely in sympathy with it. But in considering this question and summing up what he suggests, will he bear in mind that the essential difference, as we have seen locally, between the crude spirit drinker and the other types of unfortu-

nates whom he mentioned, is that they are so much more likely day by day to do things which are grossly offensive to people in the area in which they have pitched their tent? What would he do about that?

Mr. Macleod: I understand that. I am limited by time, but I will try in a sentence or two to answer that.
On the first point, the problem is bigger than the Government Departments think. This is inevitable, because we have to turn the stones over to find how many people are involved in this in some parts of London.
Secondly, as to who should take part in it, I have no criticism to make of the Ministry of Health. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that I have a great admiration for that Department. But I genuinely believe that there is a full part to be played both by the Ministry and voluntary organisations.
So I come to the third point, which the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) has made, namely, how this should be done. I recognise that these people are deeply offensive to those who live in that part of the world. One answer to that may be a form of compulsory treatment. Everyone's instincts must be against this, and it is not good practical sociology either. If the Simon approach is thought to be too gentle— and that may be so—a more constructive step by step approach to the problems of the socially outcast is the one that offers the best hope of lifting them to a level where they can be recognised as part of our human society.
All these things point to the need for research in all these spheres. We do not yet know enough about the problems. This is one reason why I gave my name to an appeal which I hope will result in funds being made available for research into a particular difficult social problem.

4.3 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Hilton), who has described so vividly the social problem caused by crude spirit drinkers in his constituency. I want him to understand that in the terms of this Adjournment Motion the title has been assumed by me to relate to the medical


treatment of crude spirit drinkers. He has expressed some disappointment that no Minister from the Home Office is here. It is very difficult, if not impossible, under our procedures for two Ministers from Different Departments to answer in the same debate, except under circumstances which do not arise here.
However, I assure my hon. Friend, and, through him, his constituents, and more especially perhaps the inhabitants of Tower Hamlets, that all that has been said today both by him and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) will be most seriously considered and, in so far as positive suggestions have been put forward, we will have a look at them to see what can be done.
I should not be in order in discussing amending legislation, were that one of the proposals, but I shall go on to talk in some detail about the situation as we see it.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend referred to discourtesy and impertinence by my right hon. Friend. Those who know my right hon. Friend realise that he is quite incapable of demonstrating those particular qualities in private or in the House of Commons. It is very difficult to deal with matters like this by question and answer in the House sometimes without giving the wrong impression. My hon. Friend has devoted a great deal of time and thought to this problem, as I shall explain, and recently he replied to Questions on the subject.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West that, as we see things at present and with the knowledge we now have—I take his point about research—there must be a two-pronged attack. One has to start by considering what are the characteristics of the crude spirit drinker.
There has been reference to the distinction to be drawn between the ordinary alcoholic and this type of drinker. My hon. Friend, who has great knowledge of these matters, will agree, I am sure, that in addition to being a vagrant and an alcoholic, the crude spirit drinker is likely to be undernourished, dirty, infested and repulsive to most people. But the Ministry of Health not only has to exercise compassion; it has to think in terms of these

people at patients. This is the essential quality of the service we hope to provide.
The crude spirit drinker of whom we are speaking lives without shelter on bombed sites or in derelict buildings. I shall come back to the point about "winkling" them out in a few minutes. His life tends to centre on the drinking of methylated or surgical spirits because he is dependent on alcohol and these are its cheapest forms. If he has the money, he may go on to cheap wine. This is a dreadful picture of a human wreck who is destroying himself and causing a nuisance to society. I am elaborating on it a little to show that we are not insensitive to the sort of experience to which my hon. Friend's constituents are subjected.
As to the numbers and location of crude spirit drinkers—incidentally, there are very few women among them—precise and comprehensive information is not available and can be obtained only with considerable difficulty. However, the survey made by the London County Council in 1964, suggested—my figures agree with my hon. Friend's—that the number is between 150 and 200 in London, mainly in Stepney, the City of London and South-wark. There are also believed to be small groups in large towns such as Manchester Birmingham and Liverpool.
Arrangements for the treatment of alcoholism by the National Health Service are in the main provided by the hospital service in psychiatric hospitals or in psychiatric departments of general hospitals. The removal of alcoholic dependence requires psychiatric treatment, and it cannot be removed by the action of drugs alone.
As regards compulsory treatment—here I agree very much with what the right hon. Gentleman said—the law as it stands, with one exception, does not permit compulsory treatment, the exception relating to cases of open tuberculosis and the like.
For this treatment of alcoholism to be successful, it must be voluntarily accepted by the patient. After an initial "drying-out", the patient usually participates in group psychotherapy designed to help him understand his personal problem and to strengthen his motivation to abstain


from alcohol. Where appropriate, treatment is continued on an out-patient basis, and after-care often includes encouragement to join Alcoholics Anonymous.
In 1953, 775 patients were admitted to hospital for the treatment of alcoholism and alcoholic psychosis. In 1962, the number had risen to 3,690 and in 1966 to 6,088. There is little evidence of unmet demand for treatment, although some specialised units have waiting lists.
I am unable to say how many of these patients were crude spirit drinkers. They do not represent a separate diagnostic category of alcoholism, and the crude spirit drinker is treated in the same way as the patient with other forms of alcoholism. While no statistics are available of the number of crude spirit drinkers who undertake treatment, I understand that some do and that in one London hospital which specialises in the treatment of alcoholism there are at present 19 patients who have drunk crude spirits at one time or another.
Although one cannot deduce the national picture from the experience of one hospital, this shows that crude spirit drinkers are not always unwilling to accept treatment. There are no reliable figures for the total number of alcoholics in England and Wales, but such estimates as have been made are substantially higher than the numbers who receive treatment. It seems, therefore, that a high proportion are unwilling to receive treatment.
It is natural to feel that, if an alcoholic will not accept treatment voluntarily, he should, in the interests of himself and others, be compelled to accept treatment. This question is, I suppose, at the heart of our discussions. But the treatment of an alcoholic requires the co-operation of the patient, and even among those who come forward willingly there is a high rate of relapse.
The use of compulsory powers is not thought to offer a means of providing successful treatment. One must, therefore, look at the law. I am advised that the Mental Health Act, 1959, does not provide for this type of mental disorder to be subjected to compulsory admission to hospital. One may have a situation in which an alcoholic has a temporary

mental disorder where treatment can be given in that way or there may be a lasting mental disorder. In either case, the patient may become detained in a mental unit. The scope for compulsory treatment by the hospital services is limited and does not provide a solution to the social problem.
The Minister and I would like to help, but the advice we have received so far does not get us very much further. The Standing Mental Health Advisory Committee has widely reviewed the whole question of alcoholism, including that of crude spirit drinkers. My right hon. Friend is at present considering its advice, which has been endorsed by the Central Health Services Council but it is only fair to inform the House that it contained no new proposals for the treatment of crude spirit drinkers.
The problem remains to induce these people to accept treatment. The drinker of crude spirits is generally unwilling to co-operate in any way with the statutory services, but the work of the Supplementary Benefits Commission may be underrated. The sending round of vans to collect these people may need reinforcement.
I mention this factor before returning to the question of the voluntary organisations. I think that, in some areas of this problem, the voluntary organisations can do a great deal where official activity cannot intervene or cannot get to the root of the problem. I have taken into account the provocation and the fears of the people of Tower Hamlets about their children, and so on. Although this matter involves the work of other Departments, I can give the undertaking that everything that has been said today will be carefully examined.
I am convinced that we may need more research and information. I assure the House that we will look into that matter. I also take the point, which was implicit in my hon. Friend's remarks, that the very existence of such organisations as the Simon Community Trust may, by their methods, possibly attract more people in from outside—but somewhere along the line we must regard this matter nationally and see if we can find a proper formula.
The problem is a serious one. My hon. Friend has adduced it moderately


and, with his great Departmental experience at the Ministry of Health, the analysis of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West has been helpful and constructive. We will watch the matter and see to what extent further assistance can be given.

SEAMEN (TRAVEL FACILITIES)

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I wish to draw the attention of the House to a disgraceful and invidious loss which has been inflicted upon British seamen as a result of British Railways withdrawing from them travel facilities which they had long enjoyed. This imposes a grievous penalty not only upon the seamen, but upon their wives and families, and upon the well-being of the seafaring trade.
Seamen do not always return to their port of embarkation. For instance, a seaman may embark at Southampton, but his ship may return to Aberdeen and if his family is in Southampton he must travel there at his own expense. It was not always so, and it is only during the last few years that British Railways have withdrawn this facility. This was withdrawn suddenly and unreasonably, thereby inflicting pain and suffering upon the seamen, their wives and children.
To remedy this sad state of affairs I obtained the unanimous leave of the House to bring in a Bill entitled "Travel Concessions to Seamen". Leave to bring in the Bill expired at the end of last Session. I have had upon the Order Paper a long-standing Motion in the following terms:
 That this House is of opinion that for social, family, economic and other reasons the withdrawal by British Railways of the cheap fare railway vouchers hitherto available to seamen and their families is wrong as it frustrates family reunions, deprives British Railways of fares, diminishes British Railways' income— 
and my Motion then called upon the Chancellor and the Minister of Transport, by legislation or otherwise—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must be careful how he argues his case. If what he is arguing for can be solved only by legislation then he cannot raise it on the Adjournment. He must not mention legislation.

Mr. Hughes: In the case that I am making against British Railways I am

supported by the National Union of Seamen, of which I have the honour to be a member, by petition signed by hundreds of Cunard seamen and by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). I am also supported by all decent hon. Members who have family feelings, and who have the welfare of the seamen and the British maritime trade at heart.
The petition from the Cunard seamen is brief and says:
 We, the members of the above ship wish to add our support to the protest over the withdrawal of the privilege of railway voucher system since this has been stopped. We find many cases where this causes hardship to a man and separates him from his family. We offer this protest in the hope that you can have this privilege reinstated or arrange for some similiar scheme.
Merchant seamen were entitled to cheap fares from the port at which they landed to the port where their homes were.
Another important aspect is that the seamen perform great services to the industry and employment of our country. These services are also essential to British trade and finance, and they have long been recognised by responsible bodies such as the British Shipping Federation, the National Union of Seamen, the National Maritime Board and British Railways.
Until two years ago British Railways accorded these facilities to seamen and then, unreasonably, they suddenly withdrew them. Naturally, the National Union of Seamen took up the matter. At the instance of the union, and because of my humanitarian feelings, I asked a number of Questions on the subject. Correspondence ensued, and I shall refer briefly to parts of two letters which are relevant.
On 4th July, the National Maritime Board wrote to British Railways. It said:
 The National Maritime Board has, amongst other matters, recently been considering a revision of an agreement under which, in certain circumstances, seafarers are entitled to a rail fare concession from owners when discharged at a port other than the port of engagement. The shipowners have expressed their willingness to extend the concession to seafarers not at present covered by the agreement, by granting them a warrant equivalent to 25 per cent, of the cost of a single journey. The purpose of this letter is to ask your Board whether they would be prepared to accept such a warrant and debit the British Shipping Federation Ltd. with 25 per cent, of the cost of a full single fare. At present.


you do, in fact, accept from the Federation railway warrants for the full fare.
There was an astonishing and brief reply from British Railways. It said:
 Referring to your letter of 4th July, the British Shipping Federation have also asked me if it is possible to help them with this problem. I can only repeat what I have told the British Shipping Federation that one of the reasons for withdrawing the concession was to remove the paper work and so reduce administration costs. We cannot therefore agree to accept your suggestion which would increase and complicate the accountancy work.
Was there ever such an unfeeling, uneconomic and irrational reply? The warrant proposed by the National Maritime Board was fair and reasonable. The rejection of that proposal by British Railways on the ground of, forsooth, paper work, administration costs and accountancy work was trivial, unworthy and an offence to reason.
In a further letter of 22nd August, 1967, to me, British Railways admitted:
 We appreciate that the British Shipping Federation and the National Maritime Board wish seamen to continue to have this reduction.
Yet the British Railways Board contumaciously persists in its refusal to withdraw the ban which it imposed on 23rd April, 1966.
I ask the House to take the view that during this course of conduct British Railways are behaving unreasonably and improperly. I ask the Minister to take urgent steps to see that the facilities are given back to the seamen, their wives and families who are being deprived of them in this disgraceful way.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Perhaps I might have the leave of the House to intervene very briefly. One thing is clear—that the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) has pursued this matter in all possible ways and that we should pay tribute to his determination in pursuing it.
It may well be that the Minister will take the view that at present, when British Railways are supporting a deficit of more than £150 million, any concession which involves additional administration or paper work or cost would have to be looked at very carefully. On the other hand, the House appreciates that shipping

makes an enormous contribution to our national wealth by way of invisible exports, and if there were any question of any concession being made then I am sure that the House would have some degree of sympathy with the seamen because they have to involve themselves in a very difficult life which means that they are apart from their families.
May I ask two brief questions with which the Minister might care to deal in his reply? First, are similar facilities available to any other group within our community? Secondly, in the change which was made, was there consultation with the Chamber of Shipping or the National Union of Seamen?
We have all enjoyed listening to the hon. and learned Member's speech and we have watched with great admiration the way in which he has pursued the matter—the way which we have come to expect of him.

4.27 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): In the last speech in the House before Christmas, may I join the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) in the tribute which he paid to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). The tenacity of my hon. and learned Friend in pursuing this matter has earned the respect of us all. He has left no stone unturned in Parliamentary procedure in acting on behalf of the seamen in this matter. As we all know, he is a very doughty fighter for causes which touch his heart. However, that does not alter the fact that his argument tends to be in many ways misleading and that some of the basic assumptions of the case which have been presented by him are not borne out by a close examination of the facts.
My hon. and learned Friend argues that there is a strong moral and social case for subsidising seamen's travel. That was echoed in the speech of the hon. Member for Cathcart. That may be so, but it is not for the British Railways Board to provide cheap travel on social grounds, however deserving it might be. That seemed to be the unanimous view of the House in the course of our deliberations yesterday and that is the


whole theme of our approach to the finances of British Railways.
This concession for seamen, like all other concessions provided by British Railways, could be justified only if it attracted sufficient extra passengers to increase total revenue. Quite simply, the Board decided earlier this year that the seamen's concession was no longer justifying itself from the commercial point of view. My hon. and learned Friend may consider the Board's commercial judgment to have been at fault and he may argue that the withdrawal of the concession has lost the Board potential passenger traffic. But it is, I think, hardly for us to take the view that we know better than do the railway management what is commercially advantageous to them.
It is, I think, important to put this matter in the context of the Transport Bill which had its Second Reading in the House yesterday. It is a fundamental principle of the Government's railway policy, as contained in that Bill, that the railways should be enabled to meet their financial obligations and be freed from the demoralising burden of deficit which has laid upon them for so long. In particular, the Railways Board is to be relieved of the burden imposed by those unremunerative passenger services which are nevertheless necessary on social grounds. Against that background, it would not be consistent to require the Railways Board to provide concessions for seamen on any grounds other than those of commercial justification.
If there is, in fact, a special case for reduced fares for seamen, it is surely on the grounds that their employment involves them inevitably in certain travelling expenses. Reduced fares can and should be seen to be analogous with the subsidised housing or clothing or food provided by employers in other walks of life. If the shipowners wish to provide cheap travel, rather than taking the special circumstances into account when considering wages, they can, of course, do so; but they must not expect British Railways to be out of pocket or to involve themselves in administrative arrangements quite different from those provided for other firms and organisations.
The hon. Member for Cathcart asked whether there was any other organisation in receipt of concessions of this kind. I would refer to seamen employed by the Ministry of Defence. The Ministry of Defence, as employer, is meeting the cost of travel concessions just as private shipowners could do.
I should like at this point to explain in detail how the previous voucher system for seamen differed from the warrant arrangements which are acceptable to British Railways. When a seaman wished to travel at a reduced rate, he used to present his voucher at the ticket office, and the ticket clerk then calculated the discount on full fare to which the traveller was entitled. If it were the case that an ordinary reduced fare, for example a period return or a special midweek return, was cheaper than the discounted full fare, then one of the special reduced tickets would be used instead and no discount would be allowed.
Clearly, there were a number of problems involved with this system. From the railways' point of view the system was administratively cumbersome, and expensive. In withdrawing the system of vouchers the Railways Board did not leave a complete void, as my hon. and learned Friend suggested. It was left open to the shipowners, if they wished still to help their employees, to participate in the normal British Railways' warrant scheme. This system of credit facilities is already used by many large companies including the British Shipping Federation and most major shipowners and operates by means of the issue of a number of books of warrants to an organisation, which can then re-issue them to individual members or employees, the warrant bearing details of the journey they are to undertake and the kind of ticket required. The warrant is then exchanged for the ticket, and at regular intervals the company is billed with the cost of the various tickets for which warrants have been exchanged. The company pays this bill and can if it wishes to do so reclaim part of the cost from the employees.
This scheme has been running smoothly for some time and represents an annual revenue to British Railways of between £8 million and £9 million. The administrative costs have been reduced to an acceptable level through standardisation of the procedure.
The basic point which I want to make is that it is not only for the Railways Board to decide whether it is in their own commercial interests to provide reduced travel in the hope of attracting extra passengers and hence increase net revenue. It is also for the Railways Board to decide by what administrative methods it will allow other organisations, particularly employers like the shipowners in this case, themselves to make travel arrangements for their members or employees.
I am sure all hon. Members will agree that none of this is in any sense a matter

of transport policy for the Government. Indeed, the only transport policy issue is that of ensuring that the Railways Board are freed from the necessity of providing unremunerative facilities, and are thustions and to show the country that they are able to operate profitably and efficiently when given a fair and workable made able to meet their financial obligastatutory remit.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Five o'clock till Wednesday, 17th January, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 19th December.